# SMCPS teachers in the news



## Gilligan

I doubt the kids will be too upset about this.

http://www.wjla.com/articles/2014/08/st-mary-s-county-teachers-refuse-to-give-out-homework-want-pay-raises-106010.html


----------



## JeJeTe

As a parent, I can't say this doesn't excite me a bit.  

Also, there is no way they pay them enough.  At all.


----------



## RareBreed

I wish Calvert would do that. Teachers would be so behind in grading stuff they would put Z's in for grades until they got around to grading them. It would tank the over-all grade. Can't tell you how many times I had to email teachers asking them to fix it before report cards came out.


----------



## RoseRed

> St. Mary’s teachers aren’t the first to try something like this. Last year, teachers in Fairfax County vowed to end many of their extracurricular activities unless they received pay raises.



How did it work out for Fairfax County?


----------



## SG_Player1974

Sorry but.... I have ZERO sympathy for teachers around here. Summer off, 1 or 2 days a month for lesson planning, teacher in-services, etc... etc....

My father was a teacher for 30 years and barely got pay raises and NEVER took it out on the children. PLUS..... he never got these days off during the month for "planning"

Sure... he made lesson plans and had time to form a teaching agenda for the next term.... IT WAS CALLED SUMMER!!! You know.... when he got PAID but was not at the school everyday!

As for the "too much work when not in school" all I have to say is..... WELCOME TO THE REST OF THE WORKING WORLD!!!


----------



## DQ2B

SG_Player1974 said:


> Sorry but.... I have ZERO sympathy for teachers around here. Summer off, 1 or 2 days a month for lesson planning, teacher in-services, etc... etc....
> 
> My father was a teacher for 30 years and barely got pay raises and NEVER took it out on the children. PLUS..... he never got these days off during the month for "planning"
> 
> Sure... he made lesson plans and had time to form a teaching agenda for the next term.... IT WAS CALLED SUMMER!!! You know.... when he got PAID but was not at the school everyday!
> 
> As for the "too much work when not in school" all I have to say is..... WELCOME TO THE REST OF THE WORKING WORLD!!!




Well that might be okay if they got paid a salary that reflected what you seem to think is required of their workload.


----------



## GW8345

SG_Player1974 said:


> Sorry but.... I have ZERO sympathy for teachers around here. Summer off, 1 or 2 days a month for lesson planning, teacher in-services, etc... etc....
> 
> My father was a teacher for 30 years and barely got pay raises and NEVER took it out on the children. PLUS..... he never got these days off during the month for "planning"
> 
> Sure... he made lesson plans and had time to form a teaching agenda for the next term.... IT WAS CALLED SUMMER!!! You know.... when he got PAID but was not at the school everyday!
> 
> As for the "too much work when not in school" all I have to say is..... WELCOME TO THE REST OF THE WORKING WORLD!!!







If the teachers refuse to do their job, fire them! 

What about the children, think of the children.

I don’t care if they don’t hand out homework, my little one will still be doing homework, the stuff I assign him.

Now, fire those teachers that refuse to do their job and hire new ones, guess they haven’t looked at the job market lately, they should be thankful they have a freaking job in the first place. And if they don’t like the pay, they can find another job that pays more.


----------



## DQ2B

Gilligan said:


> I doubt the kids will be too upset about this.
> 
> http://www.wjla.com/articles/2014/08/st-mary-s-county-teachers-refuse-to-give-out-homework-want-pay-raises-106010.html



Or the parents. I couldn't be happier about no homework, if indeed that happens...


----------



## DQ2B

GW8345 said:


> If the teachers refuse to do their job, fire them!
> 
> What about the children, think of the children.
> 
> I don’t care if they don’t hand out homework, my little one will still be doing homework, the stuff I assign him.
> 
> Now, fire those teachers that refuse to do their job and hire new ones, guess they haven’t looked at the job market lately, they should be thankful they have a freaking job in the first place. And if they don’t like the pay, they can find another job that pays more.



That's a great solution...then you'd be teaching your "little one" too.


----------



## libertytyranny

I have to giggle at the people claiming no homework will "harm the kids' education" good riddance to most of that useless busy work anyway :shrug: If they didn't have to do so much stuff that parents ought to be doing or prepping for a multitude of tests, they could easily teach within the timeframe given and have room to go over homework while students read or do their work independently.


----------



## Chris0nllyn

I bet the grades go up after no homework.


----------



## SG_Player1974

DQ2B said:


> Well that might be okay if they got paid a salary that reflected what you seem to think is required of their workload.



Average salary.... average.... for a St.Mary's county school teacher is ~$48K that seems on the low side to me as the geusstimated high side is ~$85K

Not too bad for only having to spend 2/3 of the work year in your office!

I'm not saying that teachers don't work hard. I'm sayinbg that WE ALL DO! Nobody is getting raises right now! Join the club!!


----------



## JeJeTe

Chris0nllyn said:


> I bet the grades go up after no homework.



My drinking would probably go down also.


----------



## Hijinx

libertytyranny said:


> I have to giggle at the people claiming no homework will "harm the kids' education" good riddance to most of that useless busy work anyway :shrug: If they didn't have to do so much stuff that parents ought to be doing or prepping for a multitude of tests, they could easily teach within the timeframe given and have room to go over homework while students read or do their work independently.



Sounds like a really stupid idea to me. You would think educated people could come up with a better idea to seek a pay raise than this.
Maybe they could boycott the Lotto or the casino's that are  earning the money to pay their salaries. LOL.


----------



## DQ2B

SG_Player1974 said:


> Average salary.... average.... for a St.Mary's county school teacher is ~$48K that seems on the low side to me as the geusstimated high side is ~$85K
> 
> Not too bad for only having to spend 2/3 of the work year in your office!
> 
> I'm not saying that teachers don't work hard. I'm sayinbg that WE ALL DO! Nobody is getting raises right now! Join the club!!



Really, 2/3 of the year? Most teachers spend well beyond the regular 8 hour work day and breaks just keeping up with paperwork, administrative crap, etc. I know security guards that make more working for the federal government. Just sayin.


----------



## Baja28

My questions would be:

1. What is their salary?
2. When was the last time they got a raise?
3. How much was the last raise?


----------



## GURPS

libertytyranny said:


> good riddance to most of that useless busy work anyway




work to reenforce the days lessons :shrug:


----------



## Vince

I know this is off topic, but do teachers in St Mary's and Calvert teach that common core BS?


----------



## struggler44

Back to the question, what happened to the 6 million dollars Mr. Martirano?


----------



## GW8345

DQ2B said:


> That's a great solution...then you'd be teaching your "little one" too.



And you think I'm not doing that already, education doesn't just happen at a school.


----------



## stgislander

Baja28 said:


> My questions would be:
> 
> 1. What is their salary?
> 2. When was the last time they got a raise?
> 3. How much was the last raise?



And any other benefits above and beyond salary.


----------



## GW8345

DQ2B said:


> Really, 2/3 of the year? Most teachers spend well beyond the regular 8 hour work day and breaks just keeping up with paperwork, administrative crap, etc. I know security guards that make more working for the federal government. Just sayin.



Then maybe the teachers should look into a new line of work as a security guard.

And do you think teachers are the only one's who work more then 8 hours a day and take work home with them?


----------



## migtig

Ha.  I haven't had a pay raise in 3 years and I keep assuming more and more work load, as more people leave due to retirement or "greener" pastures, and those positions not being backfilled. I average 14plus hours a day and can't remember my last real vacation or holiday off.  So, yeah, I'd happily be a teacher.  IMHO, they've got it easy.  Wish I was part of a union where I didn't have to do shiyt and still got to keep my job.


----------



## DQ2B

GW8345 said:


> Then maybe the teachers should look into a new line of work as a security guard.
> 
> And do you think teachers are the only one's who work more then 8 hours a day and take work home with them?



Of course other professions take work home, my point is that many are compensated for that where teachers are not.


----------



## DQ2B

migtig said:


> Ha.  I haven't had a pay raise in 3 years and I keep assuming more and more work load, as more people leave due to retirement or "greener" pastures, and those positions not being backfilled. I average 14plus hours a day and can't remember my last real vacation or holiday off.  So, yeah, I'd happily be a teacher.  IMHO, they've got it easy.  Wish I was part of a union where I didn't have to do shiyt and still got to keep my job.



Let me know how easy you think it is when some "bad a$$" walks into your class room tells you to "f#$k off" and then threatens you, your family, throws a desk at you, etc. And THEN, the administration tells you they can't DO anything about it.


----------



## DQ2B

GW8345 said:


> And you think I'm not doing that already, education doesn't just happen at a school.



Maybe full time teaching at home is for you then.


----------



## kom526

All this vitriol coming from government employees. Glass houses and such.


----------



## migtig

DQ2B said:


> Let me know how easy you think it is when some "bad a$$" walks into your class room tells you to "f#$k off" and then threatens you, your family, throws a desk at you, etc. And THEN, the administration tells you they can't DO anything about it.



Ohhhhh, scary.  I've dealt with worse - including a boss who throws things at employees and co-workers who've been arrested sitting right beside me.  Do you really want to play this game of who has had the scariest job moments, because I bet you a dollar I'll win, and I don't gamble.  

I deal with all that for a lot less money and benefits than a teacher.  I work in the real world, don't have a union to fall back on, and am not guaranteed my pension or job.  I actually have to succeed, show progress and achievements at my job, deal with "mean people" every single damn day and then go back the next day and hope I still have a job to show up to.    

There is no sympathy or pity from me for any teacher, nor will there be.  Teachers don't have a crap job for crap pay in comparision to the overwhelming majority of other jobs in our nation.  Their job is a heck of a lot better than the majority of working Americans, especially those who don't know if they are even going to get their next paycheck.  They are part of a union, which means they don't even have to bother to teach their students at all, or have decent performance reviews or anything. We all know they aren't going to get fired.  

Seriously, I am not impressed with any whining from anybody unless you are a US soldier.

If you are a teacher and don't want to do your job, then fine.  I know there is nothing I can do about it.  However, I don't have to like it and I truly wish your lazy ass wasn't part of union and had to deal with the realities of the world.


----------



## GW8345

DQ2B said:


> Of course other professions take work home, my point is that many are compensated for that where teachers are not.


Most salary workers are not compensated either, I don’t’ see them refusing to do their job.



DQ2B said:


> Let me know how easy you think it is when some "bad a$$" walks into your class room tells you to "f#$k off" and then threatens you, your family, throws a desk at you, etc. And THEN, the administration tells you they can't DO anything about it.



And how often does that happen in St Mary's County? 



kom526 said:


> All this vitriol coming from government employees. Glass houses and such.



And how many government empolyees have you heard about threatening to not do their job because they haven't gotten a pay raise, how many have you heard of protesting? How many of those teachers had to deal with sequestration and actually had pay cuts? How many of those teacher deploy, work weekends, work nights, travel, or go into harms way?


----------



## GW8345

migtig said:


> Ohhhhh, scary.  I've dealt with worse - including a boss who throws things at employees and co-workers who've been arrested sitting right beside me.  Do you really want to play this game of who has had the scariest job moments, because I bet you a dollar I'll win, and I don't gamble.
> 
> I deal with all that for a lot less money and benefits than a teacher.  I work in the real world, don't have a union to fall back on, and am not guaranteed my pension or job.  I actually have to succeed, show progress and achievements at my job, deal with "mean people" every single damn day and then go back the next day and hope I still have a job to show up to.
> 
> There is no sympathy or pity from me for any teacher, nor will there be.  Teachers don't have a crap job for crap pay in comparision to the overwhelming majority of other jobs in our nation.  Their job is a heck of a lot better than the majority of working Americans, especially those who don't know if they are even going to get their next paycheck.  They are part of a union, which means they don't even have to bother to teach their students at all, or have decent performance reviews or anything. We all know they aren't going to get fired.
> 
> Seriously, I am not impressed with any whining from anybody unless you are a US soldier.
> 
> If you are a teacher and don't want to do your job, then fine.  I know there is nothing I can do about it.  However, I don't have to like it and I truly wish your lazy ass wasn't part of union and had to deal with the realities of the world.



:MasiveApplause :


----------



## kom526

GW8345 said:


> Most salary workers are not compensated either, I don’t’ see them refusing to do their job.
> 
> 
> 
> And how often does that happen in St Mary's County?
> 
> 
> 
> And how many government empolyees have you heard about threatening to not do their job because they haven't gotten a pay raise, how many have you heard of protesting? How many of those teachers had to deal with sequestration and actually had pay cuts? How many of those teacher deploy, work weekends, work nights, travel, or go into harms way?



How they threatening to not do their jobs?


Really? You want to compare civilians to members of the armed services? Really?


----------



## GW8345

kom526 said:


> How they threatening to not do their jobs?
> 
> 
> Really? You want to compare civilians to members of the armed services? Really?



1) Is not assigning homework part of their job?

2) Do y ou think the military is the only ones who deploy, who work dangerous jobs? I've seen plenty of Gov't/contractors working on the flight deck of a carrier during flight ops, is that not a dangerous place? I take you think DoD gov't/contractor workers are merely office workers who have 9-5 jobs.


----------



## dave1959

DQ2B said:


> Really, 2/3 of the year? Most teachers spend well beyond the regular 8 hour work day and breaks just keeping up with paperwork, administrative crap, etc. I know security guards that make more working for the federal government. Just sayin.



Then tell'em to go be a security guard and quit complaining. They picked a career and they knew what they were getting into.


----------



## kom526

GW8345 said:


> 1) Is not assigning homework part of their job?
> 
> 2) Do y ou think the military is the only ones who deploy, who work dangerous jobs? I've seen plenty of Gov't/contractors working on the flight deck of a carrier during flight ops, is that not a dangerous place? I take you think DoD gov't/contractor workers are merely office workers who have 9-5 jobs.



Assigning homework is not mandatory, ergo the "back to basics" slogan.

Most of the government employees I know are desk jockeys, so I can throw out my generalizations just as well as you can.


----------



## GW8345

kom526 said:


> Assigning homework is not mandatory, ergo the "back to basics" slogan.
> 
> Most of the government employees I know are desk jockeys, so I can throw out my generalizations just as well as you can.



But you are the one who questioned my generalizations as being military only.

If teachers don't like what they get paid, they can look for another job that pays higher, there's a reason why it's called "The Job MARKET"


----------



## kom526

GW8345 said:


> If teachers don't like what they get paid, they can look for another job that pays higher, there's a reason why it's called "The Job MARKET"





So you are saying that breach of contract is okay?


----------



## GW8345

kom526 said:


> So you are saying that breach of contract is okay?



Show me where in the contract it states the teachers are supposed to get a pay raise and how much it's supposed to be.

Then show me where in the contract it states the teachers are allowed to protest and not perform the work they are expected to perform as part of not getting a pay raise. 

I'm sure there are other avenues for the teachers to pursue in order to get their precious pay raise; this is just a publicity stunt in order to garner public support for their cause.


----------



## kom526

GW8345 said:


> Show me where in the contract it states the teachers are supposed to get a pay raise and how much it's supposed to be.
> 
> Then show me where in the contract it states the teachers are allowed to protest and not perform the work they are expected to perform as part of not getting a pay raise.
> 
> I'm sure there are other avenues for the teachers to pursue in order to get their precious pay raise; this is just a publicity stunt in order to garner public support for their cause.



The contracts (and raises) are negotiated every year couple of years. http://www.easmc.net/advocacy/agreement.pdf Pages 6 - 8.

They are following the letter of the contract. If you and the MSM want to call that protesting, then so be it.  MD is a NO STRIKE state when it comes to teachers.

Isn't any kind of "protest" a publicity stunt?


----------



## DQ2B

migtig said:


> Ohhhhh, scary.  I've dealt with worse - including a boss who throws things at employees and co-workers who've been arrested sitting right beside me.  Do you really want to play this game of who has had the scariest job moments, because I bet you a dollar I'll win, and I don't gamble.
> 
> I deal with all that for a lot less money and benefits than a teacher.  I work in the real world, don't have a union to fall back on, and am not guaranteed my pension or job.  I actually have to succeed, show progress and achievements at my job, deal with "mean people" every single damn day and then go back the next day and hope I still have a job to show up to.
> 
> 
> There is no sympathy or pity from me for any teacher, nor will there be.  Teachers don't have a crap job for crap pay in comparision to the overwhelming majority of other jobs in our nation.  Their job is a heck of a lot better than the majority of working Americans, especially those who don't know if they are even going to get their next paycheck.  They are part of a union, which means they don't even have to bother to teach their students at all, or have decent performance reviews or anything. We all know they aren't going to get fired.
> 
> Seriously, I am not impressed with any whining from anybody unless you are a US soldier.
> 
> If you are a teacher and don't want to do your job, then fine.  I know there is nothing I can do about it.  However, I don't have to like it and I truly wish your lazy ass wasn't part of union and had to deal with the realities of the world.



No, I'm NOT a teacher. If your job is so God awful and you'd rather teach then go for it.


----------



## DQ2B

GW8345 said:


> Most salary workers are not compensated either, I don’t’ see them refusing to do their job.
> 
> Well....that's because they already make a salary that compensates for it.
> 
> 
> And how often does that happen in St Mary's County?
> 
> Too much


----------



## Radiant1

DQ2B said:


> No, I'm NOT a teacher. If your job is so God awful and you'd rather teach then go for it.





This "I suck it up with a shiatty job I refuse to leave so everyone else should suffer too" mentality is just silly. Is it not the American way to better one's perceived plight? Is that not what the teachers are doing?


----------



## terbear1225

DQ2B said:


> No, I'm NOT a teacher. If your job is so God awful and you'd rather teach then go for it.



This is what I dont get.  People are quick to say if teachers dont like the demands/ pay, they should get a new job.  A large number do leave the teaching profession within the first 5 years.  If teaching is such an easy gig, why arent all the "haters". Flocking to the profession?


----------



## kom526

terbear1225 said:


> This is what I dont get.  People are quick to say if teachers dont like the demands/ pay, they should get a new job.  A large number do leave the teaching profession within the first 5 years.  If teaching is such an easy gig, why arent all the "haters". Flocking to the profession?



Well, duh!!! It doesn't pay enough!


----------



## DQ2B

dave1959 said:


> Then tell'em to go be a security guard and quit complaining. They picked a career and they knew what they were getting into.



So your answer is just to walk away when things don't go the way you want. There's a difference between complaining and taking action.


----------



## GW8345

terbear1225 said:


> This is what I dont get.  People are quick to say if teachers dont like the demands/ pay, they should get a new job.  A large number do leave the teaching profession within the first 5 years.  If teaching is such an easy gig, why arent all the "haters". Flocking to the profession?



Because I like earning enough money to live comfortably, just because you volunteer to do a job doesn't mean you get to decide how much you should be paid. 

If the teachers don't like the pay, then they can move one because obviously, if a large number leave within five years and we haven't run out of teachers yet there is a large amount entering the profession to replace them, teachers are not in short supply.


----------



## intertidal

GW8345 said:


> Because I like earning enough money to live comfortably, just because you volunteer to do a job doesn't mean you get to decide how much you should be paid.
> 
> If the teachers don't like the pay, then they can move one because obviously, if a large number leave within five years and we haven't run out of teachers yet there is a large amount entering the profession to replace them, teachers are not in short supply.



The average turnover for teaching is around 56% after 3 years which is about twice as high as all other professional positions combined. Do you really think an annual scramble to fill so many newly vacated positions is a positive thing for schools?

The contract includes a salary scale - which the county is adhering to for all county workers - except teachers. I hadn't considered that the supposed desperation or supply of new job-seekers justified employers to violate the contracts of already filled positions. Interesting situational ethics. I do agree that teachers should leave St. Mary's ASAP.


----------



## Radiant1

GW8345 said:


> Because I like earning enough money to live comfortably, *just because you volunteer to do a job doesn't mean you get to decide how much you should be paid*.



If that's the case, then I want to stop hearing everyone whine about military members being underpaid. They volunteered for the job, and they didn't have to get a degree before doing so.


----------



## intertidal

I question the strategy of the union in negotiating without an attempt to actually enforce the contract. It seems clear that contract law is applicable and this could be settled by the courts. The union should use those dues payments to sue the county. Playing nice (but amateurishly) and attempting to negotiate has gotten them nowhere. And it costs nothing to file complaints with the state and national fair labor boards. 

It may be good politics to cheat teachers when running for re-election in an area hostile to education, but selectively violating contracts is poor public policy.


----------



## GW8345

intertidal said:


> The average turnover for teaching is around 56% after 3 years which is about twice as high as all other professional positions combined. Do you really think an annual scramble to fill so many newly vacated positions is a positive thing for schools?
> 
> The contract includes a salary scale - which the county is adhering to for all county workers - except teachers. I hadn't considered that the supposed desperation or supply of new job-seekers justified employers to violate the contracts of already filled positions. Interesting situational ethics. I do agree that teachers should leave St. Mary's ASAP.



If the county is not adhering to the contract, then take them to court, unless there is something in the contract that allows the county to do what they are doing, if so, whose fault is that?



Radiant1 said:


> If that's the case, then I want to stop hearing everyone whine about military members being underpaid. They volunteered for the job, and they didn't have to get a degree before doing so.



How many military members have you heard whine about their pay? What you hear is people outside of the military complaining, you don't hear military personnel complaining; also, when was the last time you heard a military member threaten to not perform their job completely until they get a pay raise? 



intertidal said:


> I question the strategy of the union in negotiating without an attempt to actually enforce the contract. It seems clear that contract law is applicable and this could be settled by the courts. The union should use those dues payments to sue the county. Playing nice (but amateurishly) and attempting to negotiate has gotten them nowhere. And it costs nothing to file complaints with the state and national fair labor boards.


----------



## Radiant1

GW8345 said:


> How many military members have you heard whine about their pay? What you hear is people outside of the military complaining, you don't hear military personnel complaining; also, when was the last time you heard a military member threaten to not perform their job completely until they get a pay raise?



I haven't counted but it's safe to say quite a few, and there's been a good bit of whining about it here on the forums as well. I could be wrong, but I think a bit of that whining, ironically, came from you...but no matter.

Teachers aren't stating they won't do their jobs but rather they won't go above and beyond (and that only when they aren't being paid what was promised).

I still don't understand why people are being venomous about this.


----------



## GW8345

Radiant1 said:


> I haven't counted but it's safe to say quite a few, and there's been a good bit of whining about it here on the forums as well. I could be wrong, but I think a bit of that whining, ironically, came from you...but no matter.
> 
> Teachers aren't stating they won't do their jobs but rather they won't go above and beyond (and that only when they aren't being paid what was promised).
> 
> I still don't understand why people are being venomous about this.



Again, how many of those complaining about military pay are actual active duty military?

Also, how many military members have you heard about not going above and beyond the call of duty because they didn't get a raise? 

If they are not being paid what is promised, take the county to court but don't use the children to further their cause.

I think the reason for the "venomous" response is that many here haven't gotten a raise in years and that the actions of the teachers appear to be those of a spoiled child throwing a temper tantrum because they are not getting what they want.


----------



## migtig

Radiant1 said:


> I haven't counted but it's safe to say quite a few, and there's been a good bit of whining about it here on the forums as well. I could be wrong, but I think a bit of that whining, ironically, came from you...but no matter.
> 
> Teachers aren't stating they won't do their jobs but rather they won't go above and beyond (and that only when they aren't being paid what was promised).
> 
> I still don't understand why people are being venomous about this.



Why?  Because people are fed up.  The education system blows and and a big part of that is because of crappy teachers who have tenure and their union ensures that these losers, that aren't teaching your kids anyway, never get fired.  Sure, there are good teachers, but then they see that they don't get rewards, bonuses, because those go to the craptastic teacher with tenure who has a bad attitudes and doesn't do any work.  So yes, then those good teachers either leave the education system or they became just like the losers ahead of them.  

In the real world, if you don't go above and beyond, you don't have a union protecting you from losing your job.  If you don't achieve, you don't win.

I'm sick of hearing it's for the children.   

I want teachers to face the real world and be held accountable for actually teaching instead of half assing their jobs.  

I see overwhelming ignorance in the young adults I encounter and that's not because the kid isn't a good kid or that their parents didn't care, it's because of a crappy education and they were never properly taught nor educated in school.  

It's why I see parents working their asses off to get their kids in private schools.  It's why I see people pulling their kids out of school and choosing to educate at home or join an education co-op.  

Why should our tax dollars go towards supporting a union that ensures a teacher cannot get fired?!


----------



## WashCaps

Most people work 40 hours a week for 52 weeks a year which equals 2080 hours worked (granted most people take either vacation/sick/or other type of leave during the year)

Teachers work 190 days a year I assume at 8 hours a day.  Even if you factor in 2 extra hours each day for work done outside of the classroom for ALL 190 days, that only adds up to 1900 hours worked in a year (190 x 10).  Thats still 180 hours less than the average person.  That's four and a half weeks less than the average person.  

Factor in 3 extra hours a day for all 190 days and thats only 2090 hours worked (only 10 more than the average person).  I find it hard to believe teachers work 2 extra hours EACH and EVERY day they work, let alone 3.  If they do, then yes the teaching profession should be compensated for that.


----------



## Radiant1

GW8345 said:


> Again, how many of those complaining about military pay are actual active duty military?
> 
> Also, how many military members have you heard about not going above and beyond the call of duty because they didn't get a raise?



A few. 

As for military raises, that goes with rank and years served, does it not? Although they may complain about the amount, I've not heard one military member tell me they didn't get the money that was promised them because, you know, they get their money. That's not to say it doesn't happen, but not from those I've encountered.

Btw, I'm not trying to diss on the military. I'm just trying to make a point on what I view as a double-standard by persons such as yourself.



GW8345 said:


> If they are not being paid what is promised, take the county to court but don't use the children to further their cause.



Fair enough (to some degree). If it's hurting the children, then the county should pay what's owed, simple. Frankly, I'm not so sure refusing to assign homework or grading papers at home while off duty would hurt the children, but who knows, maybe the kids will be devastated and the future of SMC is at stake. (I almost said that with a straight face).



GW8345 said:


> I think the reason for the "venomous" response is that many here haven't gotten a raise in years and that the actions of the teachers appear to be those of a spoiled child throwing a temper tantrum because they are not getting what they want.



So, you (or someone else) haven't received a raise in three years then no one else should either? I'm sorry, but that's just silly. It's my understanding that *it's a pay raise that was promised contractually*, so it's not as if the teachers are just being spoiled children and crying for more than they were promised.

So really, what IS the problem?


----------



## Hijinx

Radiant1 said:


> A few.
> 
> As for military raises, that goes with rank and years served, does it not? Although they may complain about the amount, I've not heard one military member tell me they didn't get the money that was promised them because, you know, they get their money. That's not to say it doesn't happen, but not from those I've encountered.
> 
> Btw, I'm not trying to diss on the military. I'm just trying to make a point on what I view as a double-standard by persons such as yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> Fair enough (to some degree). If it's hurting the children, then the county should pay what's owed, simple. Frankly, I'm not so sure refusing to assign homework or grading papers at home while off duty would hurt the children, but who knows, maybe the kids will be devastated and the future of SMC is at stake. (I almost said that with a straight face).
> 
> 
> 
> So, you (or someone else) haven't received a raise in three years then no one else should either? I'm sorry, but that's just silly. It's my understanding that *it's a pay raise that was promised contractually*, so it's not as if the teachers are just being spoiled children and crying for more than they were promised.
> 
> So really, what IS the problem?



People are tired of hearing about education preached from every politician and then seeing the money tossed in the toilet.
Maryland got gambling to help with schools, we all know the trick here. The schools will not get more money they will just be getting it from a different source, while the original money is spent elsewhere.  Contractual agreements should be honored.


----------



## GW8345

Radiant1 said:


> A few.
> 
> As for military raises, that goes with rank and years served, does it not? Although they may complain about the amount, I've not heard one military member tell me they didn't get the money that was promised them because, you know, they get their money. That's not to say it doesn't happen, but not from those I've encountered.
> 
> Btw, I'm not trying to diss on the military. I'm just trying to make a point on what I view as a double-standard by persons such as yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> Fair enough (to some degree). If it's hurting the children, then the county should pay what's owed, simple. Frankly, I'm not so sure refusing to assign homework or grading papers at home while off duty would hurt the children, but who knows, maybe the kids will be devastated and the future of SMC is at stake. (I almost said that with a straight face).
> 
> 
> 
> So, you (or someone else) haven't received a raise in three years then no one else should either? I'm sorry, but that's just silly. It's my understanding that *it's a pay raise that was promised contractually*, so it's not as if the teachers are just being spoiled children and crying for more than they were promised.
> 
> So really, what IS the problem?



So you've heard a few active duty military complain about their pay, how many of them informed the press?

Double standard, I'm retired military and I complain about the retirement benefits that were promised to all retiree's being taken away by congress, I made comments when people have said that the military is over paid but since you want compare the military to teachers let's compare what they actually do, do you want to go there?

I'm not saying just because I haven't received a raise in three years that no one should, I’m saying that the teachers need to look around and realize everyone else is hurting, they should be considerate of that. Also, where do you think this money for teacher raises is going to come from, does the county generate its own revenue? 

The problems is it comes from tax dollars so if the teachers want a raise then the county has to get that money from the tax payers and how are they going to get that money, print it? Why should I say yes, raise my taxes when we can’t fire bad teachers, when we have teachers teaching my kids crap (thing 2 told me the other day that his science told the class that global warming is real and if we don’t do something about the Co2 level in the atmosphere that all the tree will be dead in about 48 years, one of thing 1’s French teachers tell him France is better than the US), why should my tax dollars go to give teachers more when they aren’t even doing what they are supposed to be doing (how many times have we heard of kids graduating and not being able to read). 

Now, if you want to compare military to teachers let’s have that discussion, we can start by comparing number of hours worked and deployment schedules, or job hazards, or the union protection, your choice.


----------



## Radiant1

migtig said:


> Why?  Because people are fed up.  The education system blows and and a big part of that is because of crappy teachers who have tenure and their union ensures that these losers, that aren't teaching your kids anyway, never get fired.  Sure, there are good teachers, but then they see that they don't get rewards, bonuses, because those go to the craptastic teacher with tenure who has a bad attitudes and doesn't do any work.  So yes, then those good teachers either leave the education system or they became just like the losers ahead of them.
> 
> In the real world, if you don't go above and beyond, you don't have a union protecting you from losing your job.  If you don't achieve, you don't win.
> 
> I'm sick of hearing it's for the children.
> 
> I want teachers to face the real world and be held accountable for actually teaching instead of half assing their jobs.
> 
> I see overwhelming ignorance in the young adults I encounter and that's not because the kid isn't a good kid or that their parents didn't care, it's because of a crappy education and they were never properly taught nor educated in school.
> 
> It's why I see parents working their asses off to get their kids in private schools.  It's why I see people pulling their kids out of school and choosing to educate at home or join an education co-op.
> 
> Why should our tax dollars go towards supporting a union that ensures a teacher cannot get fired?!





So your issue isn't with the SMC teachers and their lack of promised pay, but rather unions in general. 

You haven't received a pay raise in three years and you've admitted you're overloaded. Is that "winning" according to you? 

My children were educated here, and they're fairly bright. I have no complaints about the education they've received. Some kids are just stupid with a low IQ and some just don't want to learn, a teacher can only do so much with that. When is the last time you set foot into a school? Have you observed the curriculum being taught? Have you observed classroom behaviors? Can you point me to a SMCPS teacher who is "tenured"? Can you name a SMC educator who didn't received a bonus but didn't deserve it? Is there anyone in particular you think is "half-assing" their job? Have you observed _anything _locally? 

Btw, the majority I know who homeschool or send their kids to private school is because they don't like the curriculum (the majority being Christian of course), and it's not because of the quality of teachers or the education per se. But, maybe you know something I don't? :shrug:

Tax dollars should go to pay SMC teachers what they were promised by the county and/or state. This has nothing to do with unions in general or the state of education elsewhere.


----------



## Gilligan

Radiant1 said:


> Btw, the majority I know who homeschool or send their kids to private school is because they don't like the curriculum (the majority being Christian of course), and it's not because of the quality of teachers or the education per se. But, maybe you know something I don't? :shrug:



Guess that makes me a minority; I took son #2 out of SMCPS because the one he was attending was a fricking zoo.


----------



## awpitt

GW8345 said:


> *If the teachers refuse to do their job, fire them!*
> 
> What about the children, think of the children.
> 
> I don’t care if they don’t hand out homework, my little one will still be doing homework, the stuff I assign him.
> 
> Now, fire those teachers that refuse to do their job and hire new ones, guess they haven’t looked at the job market lately, they should be thankful they have a freaking job in the first place. And if they don’t like the pay, they can find another job that pays more.




The teachers are not refusing to do their job.   They are going to be what's called "working to rule".  In other words they will be performing their duites in accordance with the text of their contract and nothing more.    Folks do not realize how much work most teachers do that goes beyond what they're actaully paid for.   As in what's required by their 180 day contract.



A more detailed article is here...   http://www.somdnews.com/article/201...ecline-extra-duties&template=southernMaryland


----------



## Radiant1

GW8345 said:


> So you've heard a few active duty military complain about their pay, how many of them informed the press?
> 
> Double standard, I'm retired military and I complain about the retirement benefits that were promised to all retiree's being taken away by congress, I made comments when people have said that the military is over paid but since you want compare the military to teachers let's compare what they actually do, do you want to go there?
> 
> I'm not saying just because I haven't received a raise in three years that no one should, I’m saying that the teachers need to look around and realize everyone else is hurting, they should be considerate of that. Also, where do you think this money for teacher raises is going to come from, does the county generate its own revenue?
> 
> The problems is it comes from tax dollars so if the teachers want a raise then the county has to get that money from the tax payers and how are they going to get that money, print it? Why should I say yes, raise my taxes when we can’t fire bad teachers, when we have teachers teaching my kids crap (thing 2 told me the other day that his science told the class that global warming is real and if we don’t do something about the Co2 level in the atmosphere that all the tree will be dead in about 48 years, one of thing 1’s French teachers tell him France is better than the US), why should my tax dollars go to give teachers more when they aren’t even doing what they are supposed to be doing (how many times have we heard of kids graduating and not being able to read).
> 
> Now, if you want to compare military to teachers let’s have that discussion, we can start by comparing number of hours worked and deployment schedules, or job hazards, or the union protection, your choice.



No, I don't want to compare because, as has already been pointed out, the military has VOLUNTEERED FOR THEIR JOB. :coughcough:

If you think your kid is being taught crap, then put him/her in private school and attend the BoE meetings. If the county and/or state is contracted, it's contracted. It's not really that hard to understand. Ok, well apparently it is for some people, but not most. :ahem: So, what do you as a taxpayer do if you don't like what the teachers are asking? Do you say #### the teachers and forgo what was promised? Or, do you say #### those who signed the contract and made the deal in the first place next election?


----------



## awpitt

DQ2B said:


> Or the parents. I couldn't be happier about no homework, if indeed that happens...



The WJLA piece is inaccurate.  The teachers will not be refusing to assign homework.  They will be refraining from "assigning homework that would have to be graded outside normal working hours". So there will be homework, just not as much.


----------



## GW8345

Radiant1 said:


> So your issue isn't with the SMC teachers and their lack of promised pay, but rather unions in general.
> 
> You haven't received a pay raise in three years and you've admitted you're overloaded. Is that "winning" according to you?
> 
> My children were educated here, and they're fairly bright. I have no complaints about the education they've received. Some kids are just stupid with a low IQ and some just don't want to learn, a teacher can only do so much with that. When is the last time you set foot into a school? Have you observed the curriculum being taught? Have you observed classroom behaviors? Can you point me to a SMCPS teacher who is "tenured"? Can you name a SMC educator who didn't received a bonus but didn't deserve it? Is there anyone in particular you think is "half-assing" their job? Have you observed _anything _locally?
> 
> Btw, the majority I know who homeschool or send their kids to private school is because they don't like the curriculum (the majority being Christian of course), and it's not because of the quality of teachers or the education per se. But, maybe you know something I don't? :shrug:
> 
> Tax dollars should go to pay SMC teachers what they were promised by the county and/or state. This has nothing to do with unions in general or the state of education elsewhere.



Well, why do people send their kids to private schools then?

This has everything to about unions and the state of education, after all, it's the union that negotiated the contract and why do we pay teachers in the first place…………to educate.


----------



## Radiant1

Gilligan said:


> Guess that makes me a minority; I took son #2 out of SMCPS because the one he was attending was a fricking zoo.



I have no doubt it was and that speaks of the conditions teachers have to work in. Maybe they deserve that promised raise afterall.


----------



## awpitt

SG_Player1974 said:


> Average salary.... average.... for a St.Mary's county school teacher is ~$48K that seems on the low side to me as the geusstimated high side is ~$85K
> 
> Not too bad for only having to spend 2/3 of the work year in your office!
> 
> I'm not saying that teachers don't work hard. I'm sayinbg that WE ALL DO! Nobody is getting raises right now! Join the club!!



Teachers work based on a 180 day annual contract.


----------



## Radiant1

GW8345 said:


> Well, why do people send their kids to private schools then?
> 
> This has everything to about unions and the state of education, after all, it's the union that negotiated the contract and why do we pay teachers in the first place…………to educate.



The union doesn't negotiate by itself, and it's not the union that's not holding up to it's end of the bargain.


----------



## awpitt

Vince said:


> I know this is off topic, but do teachers in St Mary's and Calvert teach that common core BS?



Yes.  Common Core is a state wide requirement.


----------



## Gilligan

Radiant1 said:


> I have no doubt it was and that speaks of the conditions teachers have to work in. Maybe they deserve that promised raise afterall.



touche'.


----------



## awpitt

GW8345 said:


> 1) Is not assigning homework part of their job?



No.  It's up to the teacher whether or not to assign homework.


----------



## GW8345

Radiant1 said:


> No, I don't want to compare because, as has already been pointed out, the military has VOLUNTEERED FOR THEIR JOB. :coughcough:
> 
> If you think your kid is being taught crap, then put him/her in private school and attend the BoE meetings. If the county and/or state is contracted, it's contracted. It's not really that hard to understand. Ok, well apparently it is for some people, but not most. :ahem: So, what do you as a taxpayer do if you don't like what the teachers are asking? Do you say #### the teachers and forgo what was promised? Or, do you say #### those who signed the contract and made the deal in the first place next election?



Funny, I don't recall teachers being forced into the profession either. "cough,cough"

If I decided to homeshool my kids will you support me, see, I WORK for a living just like a bunch of other people who send their kids to public school so if we all decided to stay home and home school our kids your tax dollars will be supporting us, is that what you wanted?

If the raise is in the contract why don't the teachers just take the county to court, unless there something else in the contract that the teachers aren't telling everyone?


----------



## awpitt

GW8345 said:


> Show me where in the contract it states the teachers are supposed to get a pay raise and how much it's supposed to be.



http://www.smcps.org/hr/employee-benefits





GW8345 said:


> Then show me where in the contract it states the teachers are allowed to protest and not perform the work they are expected to perform as part of not getting a pay raise.



They're not protesting and refusing to to do work they are expected to do.  They're going to be "working to rule" which means they will be fullfilling the requirements of their contract and nothing more.


----------



## GW8345

awpitt said:


> http://www.smcps.org/hr/employee-benefits
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're not protesting and refusing to to do work they are expected to do.  They're going to be "working to rule" which means they will be fullfilling the requirements of their contract and nothing more.



Okay, help me out here, that link tells me what day pay days are, I didn't see anything about pay raises.

So, they are not going to go above and beyond but want a pay raise, funny, I thought you got a raise when you went above and beyond and not for just doing what is stated in the contract (i.e. bare minimum).


----------



## awpitt

GW8345 said:


> Okay, help me out here, that link tells me what day pay days are, I didn't see anything about pay raises.
> 
> So, they are not going to go above and beyond but want a pay raise, funny, *I thought you got a raise when you went above and beyond *and not for just doing what is stated in the contract (i.e. bare minimum).



Exactly.  And that's the problem.  Teachers consistantly work above and beyond their contract requirements yet they're not getting the raises.


----------



## Radiant1

GW8345 said:


> If the raise is in the contract why don't the teachers just take the county to court, unless there something else in the contract that the teachers aren't telling everyone?



Perhaps they will, and then the county will raise your taxes to cover the cost of not having honored the contract in the first place. Lose/lose.


----------



## glitch

GW8345 said:


> Most salary workers are not compensated either, I don’t’ see them refusing to do their job.
> 
> 
> 
> And how often does that happen in St Mary's County?
> 
> 
> 
> And how many government empolyees have you *heard about threatening to not do their job* because they haven't gotten a pay raise, how many have you heard of protesting? How many of those teachers had to deal with sequestration and actually had pay cuts? How many of those teacher deploy, work weekends, work nights, travel, or go into harms way?



Just to be clear, teachers are going to be doing their jobs this year. If you read the article, you'd understand that what they are saying they are no longer going to do is all the extra things that they've been doing for free (i.e. working from home, setting up for and chaperoning dances, running after school clubs, etc.). They will all continue to do their jobs, which happens to be teaching. That's what they're contracted and paid to do. They're not paid to participate in all the extracurricular activities so a majority of them will no longer do so. They're not paid to tutor children outside of contracted teaching times so a majority of them will no longer do so. 

So what teachers are actually going to do, is their job and nothing more. Which they should have done a long time ago.


----------



## glitch

awpitt said:


> The teachers are not refusing to do their job.   They are going to be what's called "working to rule".  In other words they will be performing their duites in accordance with the text of their contract and nothing more.    Folks do not realize how much work most teachers do that goes beyond what they're actaully paid for.   As in what's required by their 180 day contract.
> 
> 
> 
> A more detailed article is here...   http://www.somdnews.com/article/201...ecline-extra-duties&template=southernMaryland



Teachers will not be participating in "work to rule". That's a completely different work action from what they will be participating in. In a work to rule scenario, teachers would all enter the building together at the start of their contracted work day and exit the building at the end of it. They would be doing no work outside of the work day at all. That's not what they're going to be doing this year.


----------



## awpitt

glitch said:


> Teachers will not be participating in "work to rule". That's a completely different work action from what they will be participating in. In a work to rule scenario, teachers would all enter the building together at the start of their contracted work day and exit the building at the end of it. They would be doing no work outside of the work day at all. That's not what they're going to be doing this year.



Not sure what you're talking about.  I've seen "work to rule" actions here in the past and there was no entering and exiting the building together. What "work to rule" means is what they're talking about today. The teachers will be fulfilling the requirements of their contract and nothing more.  Just what they're contracted and paid to do.


----------



## Bushy23

It's time we put things in perspective and pay them for what they do - babysit! We can get that for minimum wage. That's right. Let's give them $3.00 an hour and only the hours they worked; not any of that silly planning time, or any time they spend before or after school. That ...would be $19.50 a day (7:45 to............ 3:00 PM with 45 min. off for lunch and plan-- that equals 6 1/2 hours). Each parent should pay $19.50 a day for these teachers to baby-sit their children. Now how many students do they teach in a day...maybe 30? So that's $19.50 x 30 = $585.00 a day. However, remember they only work 180 days a year!!! I am not going to pay them for any vacations. LET'S SEE.... That's $585 X 180= $105,300 per year. (Hold on! My calculator needs new batteries).What about those special education teachers and the ones with Master's degrees? Well, we could pay them minimum wage ($7.75), and just to be fair, round it off to $8.00 an hour. That would be $8 X 6 1/2 hours X 30 children X 180 days = $280,800 per year. Wait a minute -- there's something wrong here! There sure is!

The average teacher's salary (nation wide) is $50,000. $50,000/180 days = $277.77/per day/30 students=$9.25/6.5 hours = $1.42 per hour per student--a very inexpensive baby-sitter and they even EDUCATE your kids!) WHAT A DEAL!!!!


----------



## intertidal

It should be no surprise that the thread degenerated into another teacher-bashing soapbox for the anti-education crowd. It is simply a contract issue - IMO. Having signed a contract that includes annual step increments (but not colas), the county commissioners should honor it just as they have for other county workers. Hopefully, teachers see this thread and they will then better understand that the serious discipline problems they endure from "students" have something to do with the garbage they hear at home. 

I am not a teacher and I certainly would never consider teaching in St. Mary's Co.


----------



## intertidal

GW8345 said:


> If the raise is in the contract why don't the teachers just take the county to court, unless there something else in the contract that the teachers aren't telling everyone?



Like it or not (it is irrelevant), MD is a collective bargaining state for teachers and state workers (not supervisors). In collective bargaining states, the union elected by the employees is designated to negotiate with the administration on behalf of its unit members. Many unions prefer to keep on negotiating - even when management is not listening - as in St. Mary's Co. Once a lawsuit is filed, negotiations end for the duration - which may extend beyond the next fiscal year. Many unions prefer not to "poison the water" with lawsuits for that reason. The situation in St. Mary's appears to be a simple case of contract law and IMO, the union is failing its members by not taking legal action. In addition, health insurance costs are negotiable according to collective bargaining law. Teachers in St. Mary's took 100% of the recent health insurance increase, with no negotiation. That is why all teachers in St. Mary's Co. who were enrolled in a health plan, took a pay cut effective July 1, and became the only teachers in MD to take a pay cut for FY15. At the very least, an unfair labor practice (ULP) complaint should have been made to the state labor relations board - that's why it exists.


----------



## Gilligan

intertidal said:


> Having signed a contract that includes annual step increments .



At least one thread respondent has, I noticed, asked to see that language. Is it secret?..or is it out there and I missed it?


----------



## GW8345

intertidal said:


> Like it or not (it is irrelevant), MD is collective bargaining state for teachers and state workers (not supervisors). In collective bargaining states, the union elected by the employees is designated to negotiate with the administration on behalf of its unit members. Many unions prefer to keep on negotiating - even when management is not listening - as in St. Mary's Co. Once a lawsuit is filed, negotiations end for the duration. Many unions prefer not to "poison the water" with lawsuits for that reason. The situation in St. Mary's appears to be a simple case of contract law and IMO, the union is failing its members by not taking legal action. In addition, health insurance costs are negotiable according to collective bargaining law. Teachers in St. Mary's took 100% of the recent health insurance increase, with no negotiation. That is why all teachers in St. Mary's Co. took a pay cut effective July 1, the only teachers in MD to take a pay cut for FY15. At the very least, a unfair labor practice (ULP) complaint should have been made to the state labor relations board - that's why it exists.



They got what they elected. Their union is failing them so they are going to "protest" instead of making their union do what they elected them to do.


----------



## GW8345

Gilligan said:


> At least one thread respondent has, I noticed, asked to see that language. Is it secret?..or is it out there and I missed it?



I've asked for it and still haven't seen it, even asked for the one's in the know to point it out but they haven't answered the question yet.

Kind of funny that the union hasn't filed suit yet if this is just a simple contract dispute and all the supporters are saying the county is at fault. Something doesn't smell right.


----------



## intertidal

GW8345 said:


> They got what they elected. Their union is failing them so they are going to "protest" instead of making their union do what they elected them to do.



I've seen no planned protests. In fact, the St. Mary's Co. teachers will all work the school open houses next week - unlike the highest paid teachers in the state across the river who will boycott their open houses.

And, btw, there are ways to de-certify unions and bring in another, but it very rarely occurs.


----------



## Gilligan

intertidal said:


> And, btw, there are ways to de-certify unions and bring in another, but it very rarely occurs.



rarer than hens teeth.


----------



## intertidal

Gilligan said:


> At least one thread respondent has, I noticed, asked to see that language. Is it secret?..or is it out there and I missed it?



The union contract appendix A-2 near the end has the salary scale that applies to teachers:

the last full contract:

http://easmc.net/advocacy/EASMC-SMCPS Negotiations - revision 9-30-13.pdf

And I was wrong - the union negotiates with the Bd. of Ed., not the BOCC.

The pay scale used to be on the county website, but I couldn't find it there.


----------



## Gilligan

intertidal said:


> The union contract appendix A-2 near the end has the salary scale that applies to teachers:
> 
> the last full contract:
> 
> http://easmc.net/advocacy/EASMC-SMCPS Negotiations - revision 9-30-13.pdf
> 
> And I was wrong - the union negotiates with the Bd. of Ed., not the BOCC.
> 
> The pay scale used to be on the county website, but I couldn't find it there.



soooo..the BoCC is violating ...what?  Just trying to follow this.  It's not easy..with people throwing out stuff that looks all official..like this:



> Having signed a contract that includes annual step increments (but not colas), the county commissioners should honor it just as they have for other county workers



Has the BoCC violated a contract they signed..or not???


----------



## glitch

awpitt said:


> Exactly.  And that's the problem.  Teachers consistantly work above and beyond their contract requirements yet they're not getting the raises.





awpitt said:


> Not sure what you're talking about.  I've seen "work to rule" actions here in the past and there was no entering and exiting the building together. What "work to rule" means is what they're talking about today. The teachers will be fulfilling the requirements of their contract and nothing more.  Just what they're contracted and paid to do.



Correct, teachers didn't follow the procedures that they should have during work to rule. Because they didn't follow those procedures, it didn't work. 

Please see article link below. The work action is referred to as Back to Basics, not work to rule. If it were a work to rule action, they'd simply say that. 

http://www.thebaynet.com/news/util_files/util_printstory.cfm/story_ID/38583/storytype/textarticle

What the teachers are engaging in is not work to rule. If you choose to believe it is, so be it.


----------



## glitch

Gilligan said:


> soooo..the BoCC is violating ...what?  Just trying to follow this.  It's not easy..with people throwing out stuff that looks all official..like this:
> 
> 
> 
> Has the BoCC violated a contract they signed..or not???



As far as I'm aware, the contract doesn't state, in writing, that teachers will receive a step increase each year. From what I understand, their salary step increases are part of the budget that's written by the superintendent. But I'd need some time to sit down and read over the entire document to be sure it's not mentioned.

Salary is mentioned on page 11 of the negotiated agreement.


----------



## Radiant1

Bushy23 said:


> It's time we put things in perspective and pay them for what they do - babysit! We can get that for minimum wage. That's right. Let's give them $3.00 an hour and only the hours they worked; not any of that silly planning time, or any time they spend before or after school. That ...would be $19.50 a day (7:45 to............ 3:00 PM with 45 min. off for lunch and plan-- that equals 6 1/2 hours). Each parent should pay $19.50 a day for these teachers to baby-sit their children. Now how many students do they teach in a day...maybe 30? So that's $19.50 x 30 = $585.00 a day. However, remember they only work 180 days a year!!! I am not going to pay them for any vacations. LET'S SEE.... That's $585 X 180= $105,300 per year. (Hold on! My calculator needs new batteries).What about those special education teachers and the ones with Master's degrees? Well, we could pay them minimum wage ($7.75), and just to be fair, round it off to $8.00 an hour. That would be $8 X 6 1/2 hours X 30 children X 180 days = $280,800 per year. Wait a minute -- there's something wrong here! There sure is!
> 
> The average teacher's salary (nation wide) is $50,000. $50,000/180 days = $277.77/per day/30 students=$9.25/6.5 hours = $1.42 per hour per student--a very inexpensive baby-sitter and they even EDUCATE your kids!) WHAT A DEAL!!!!



Thank you for putting things into perspective in this manner.



intertidal said:


> It should be no surprise that the thread degenerated into another teacher-bashing soapbox for the anti-education crowd. It is simply a contract issue - IMO. Having signed a contract that includes annual step increments (but not colas), the county commissioners should honor it just as they have for other county workers. Hopefully, teachers see this thread and they will then better understand that the serious discipline problems they endure from "students" have something to do with the garbage they hear at home.
> 
> I am not a teacher and I certainly would never consider teaching in St. Mary's Co.



My son is in graduate school. He's busting his butt doing his Masters within one year while working part time. He's passionate about education and plans on working in St. Mary's, which is a shame because apparently the majority of parents (and non parents) here will think he's lazy while he's dealing with their brats trying to give them a better future. Go figure.


----------



## GW8345

So where does it say they are supposed to get a raise?


----------



## GW8345

Radiant1 said:


> Thank you for putting things into perspective in this manner.
> 
> 
> 
> My son is in graduate school. He's busting his butt doing his Masters within one year while working part time. He's passionate about education and plans on working in St. Mary's, which is a shame because apparently the majority of parents (and non parents) here will think he's lazy while he's dealing with their brats trying to give them a better future. Go figure.


:epicfacepalm:


----------



## kom526

Gilligan said:


> At least one thread respondent has, I noticed, asked to see that language. Is it secret?..or is it out there and I missed it?





GW8345 said:


> I've asked for it and still haven't seen it, even asked for the one's in the know to point it out but they haven't answered the question yet.
> .





GW8345 said:


> So where does it say they are supposed to get a raise?



http://www.easmc.net/advocacy/EASMC-SMCPS Negotiations - revision 9-30-13.pdf   <<<- Page 8.

I even posted in on page 4, but for the previous contract.


----------



## Radiant1

GW8345 said:


> :epicfacepalm:



Yeah, that's what I did when he told me he wanted to be an educator. I gave him the, "But what about the low pay and the kids with crappy attitudes and the extra hours?" He said the rewards of seeing kids learn were still worth it. What more could I say? :shrug:


----------



## itsrequired

GW8345 said:


> If the county is not adhering to the contract, then take them to court, unless there is something in the contract that allows the county to do what they are doing, if so, whose fault is that?
> 
> Why the need to take them to court and spend money when the teachers can just begin to adhere to the contract!
> 
> 
> 
> How many military members have you heard whine about their pay? What you hear is people outside of the military complaining, you don't hear military personnel complaining; also, when was the last time you heard a military member threaten to not perform their job completely until they get a pay raise?



You really are stupid aren't you?  

http://www.navytimes.com/article/20...8/Officers-much-happier-than-enlisted-members

Enlisted service members are significantly less happy than officers with their pay, leaders, promotion fairness and quality of life, according to the latest annual Military Times Poll.

Reponses from more than 2,100 active-duty troops and mobilized reservists show an enlisted force with a distinctly more pessimistic outlook than the officer corps:

•* Pay. Some 53 percent of enlisted troops feel they are underpaid, compared with just 34 percent of officers*

Because you can never admit you are wrong, you will probably say something stupid like they aren't complaining, they are just making a statement.  I honestly think you have a slow mental growth issue.


----------



## GW8345

kom526 said:


> http://www.easmc.net/advocacy/EASMC-SMCPS Negotiations - revision 9-30-13.pdf   <<<- Page 8.
> 
> I even posted in on page 4, but for the previous contract.



So why hasn't the union taken the county to court, why haven't the teachers pressured the union to take the county to court?


----------



## GW8345

itsrequired said:


> You really are stupid aren't you?
> 
> http://www.navytimes.com/article/20...8/Officers-much-happier-than-enlisted-members
> 
> Enlisted service members are significantly less happy than officers with their pay, leaders, promotion fairness and quality of life, according to the latest annual Military Times Poll.
> 
> Reponses from more than 2,100 active-duty troops and mobilized reservists show an enlisted force with a distinctly more pessimistic outlook than the officer corps:
> 
> •* Pay. Some 53 percent of enlisted troops feel they are underpaid, compared with just 34 percent of officers*
> 
> Because you can never admit you are wrong, you will probably say something stupid like they aren't complaining, they are just making a statement.  I honestly think you have a slow mental growth issue.



You know, this was a civil discussion until your dumb ass showed up, go crawl back under whatever rock you came out from.

You're nothing but a freaking troll so piss off.


----------



## itsrequired

GW8345 said:


> You know, this was a civil discussion until your dumb ass showed up, go crawl back under whatever rock you came out from.
> 
> You're nothing but a freaking troll so piss off.



I knew you wouldn't admit you were wrong stupid!  Just like you to put the blame on me when you are in the wrong!  LMAO!


----------



## Gilligan

GW8345 said:


> You know, this was a civil discussion until your dumb ass showed up, go crawl back under whatever rock you came out from.



Good point. True point.


----------



## FollowTheMoney

*Skewed*



itsrequired said:


> Responses from more than 2,100 active-duty troops and mobilized reservists show an enlisted force with a distinctly more pessimistic outlook than the officer corps:
> •* Pay. Some 53 percent of enlisted troops feel they are underpaid, compared with just 34 percent of officers*.


First off, what was the percentage of the 2,100 troops that were, "mobilized reservists"? Reservists always have a pissy attitude especially about
being called up for activation. They are used to their regular civilian pay which is most likely more than their reserve pay.
As far as "members are significantly less happy than officers with their pay, leaders, promotion fairness and quality of life..." Always has been always
will be. But they don't go around protesting, picketing, walking off the job, etc. 
The survey is skewed. Plus you are comparing apples to oranges.
And as for, "Pay. Some 53 percent of enlisted troops feel they are underpaid, compared with just 34 percent of officers." Again, what type of, and percentage,
enlisted troop? Full time active duty (regular) reservist, or national guard?


----------



## awpitt

glitch said:


> Correct, teachers didn't follow the procedures that they should have during work to rule. Because they didn't follow those procedures, it didn't work.
> 
> Please see article link below. The work action is referred to as Back to Basics, not work to rule. If it were a work to rule action, they'd simply say that.
> 
> http://www.thebaynet.com/news/util_files/util_printstory.cfm/story_ID/38583/storytype/textarticle
> 
> What the teachers are engaging in is not work to rule. If you choose to believe it is, so be it.



Incorrect.  This is a "work to rule" action.  That's the legal term.   They've chosen the call it "Back to Basics" as an informal catch phrase.


----------



## itsrequired

FollowTheMoney said:


> First off, what was the percentage of the 2,100 troops that were, "mobilized reservists"? Reservists always have a pissy attitude especially about
> being called up for activation. They are used to their regular civilian pay which is most likely more than their reserve pay.
> As far as "members are significantly less happy than officers with their pay, leaders, promotion fairness and quality of life..." Always has been always
> will be. But they don't go around protesting, picketing, walking off the job, etc.
> The survey is skewed. Plus you are comparing apples to oranges.
> And as for, "Pay. Some 53 percent of enlisted troops feel they are underpaid, compared with just 34 percent of officers." Again, what type of, and percentage,
> enlisted troop? Full time active duty (regular) reservist, or national guard?




Very interesting post.  Could you answer this question.  Would you agree that there are some military members, at least 50% of  enlisted people in this survey complaining about pay?


----------



## SG_Player1974

Personally I'm tired of all this BS about equal pay for SMC teachers.....

You know what.... YOU WANT EQUAL PAY..... then fine! Give these teachers equal pay! BUT... guess what?

YOUR AZZ BETTER BE IN THAT DAMN SCHOOL FOR 8 HOURS A DAY... MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY..... YEAR ROUND!!! No more summers off!

You want summer off... I hope you got 100 days of vacation saved up beloved teacher! JUST LIKE THE REST OF US WHO HAVEN'T RECEIVED A RAISE IN YEARS!

Oh yeah..... FORGET ABOUT THE TEACHER IN-SERVICE DAYS! GONE!!!! You can earn your money just like the rest of us.... WORKING and teaching the children you are PAID to teach!

PUT UP OR SHUT UP AND JOIN THE REST OF THE WORKING WORLD!


----------



## GW8345

SG_Player1974 said:


> Personally I'm tired of all this BS about equal pay for SMC teachers.....
> 
> You know what.... YOU WANT EQUAL PAY..... then fine! Give these teachers equal pay! BUT... guess what?
> 
> YOUR AZZ BETTER BE IN THAT DAMN SCHOOL FOR 8 HOURS A DAY... MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY..... YEAR ROUND!!! No more summers off!
> 
> You want summer off... I hope you got 100 days of vacation saved up beloved teacher! JUST LIKE THE REST OF US WHO HAVEN'T RECEIVED A RAISE IN YEARS!
> 
> Oh yeah..... FORGET ABOUT THE TEACHER IN-SERVICE DAYS! GONE!!!! You can earn your money just like the rest of us.... WORKING and teaching the children you are PAID to teach!
> 
> PUT UP OR SHUT UP AND JOIN THE REST OF THE WORKING WORLD!



Excellent post.


----------



## Radiant1

SG_Player1974 said:


> Personally I'm tired of all this BS about equal pay for SMC teachers.....
> 
> You know what.... YOU WANT EQUAL PAY..... then fine! Give these teachers equal pay! BUT... guess what?
> 
> YOUR AZZ BETTER BE IN THAT DAMN SCHOOL FOR 8 HOURS A DAY... MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY..... YEAR ROUND!!! No more summers off!
> 
> You want summer off... I hope you got 100 days of vacation saved up beloved teacher! JUST LIKE THE REST OF US WHO HAVEN'T RECEIVED A RAISE IN YEARS!
> 
> Oh yeah..... FORGET ABOUT THE TEACHER IN-SERVICE DAYS! GONE!!!! You can earn your money just like the rest of us.... WORKING and teaching the children you are PAID to teach!
> 
> PUT UP OR SHUT UP AND JOIN THE REST OF THE WORKING WORLD!



It's not about equal pay (equal to whom?), it's about _promised _pay. Your non-sequitur remains a non-sequitur regardless of your capslock.


----------



## SG_Player1974

Radiant1 said:


> It's not about equal pay (equal to whom?), it's about _promised _pay.



If it is about "promised" pay then why do I hear and read NOTHING but complaints about how SMC teachers dont get paid the same amount as Calvert and Charles county teachers? That seems more like EQUAL pay to me.

Once again... Im not saying that SMC teachers dont deserve more money. Especially if it was promised to them. What I do disagree with is the way they are going about trying to get this pay. Whining about how hard their job is and that they have to do.... oh my gosh.... EXTRA WORK  Boo-freaking-hoo!!!

Just like any other job or profession in the US... if you are not happy with it or feel that you do not get what you deserve... get another job! Don't worry.. there are THOUSANDS of people that would line up for that spot you dislike.

Most people in the work force dont have the luxury of protective unions, tenured employment, summer breaks, inservice days, etc. So sympothy will be difficult to attain.

BTW... According to this, St. Mary's is 9th in rankings for best school district. Guess who is #1????

Yep... Calvert County! MAybe that is why they make the big bucks. Just sayin'

http://www.schooldigger.com/go/MD/districtrank.aspx


----------



## Radiant1

SG_Player1974 said:


> If it is about "promised" pay then why do I hear and read NOTHING but complaints about how SMC teachers dont get paid the same amount as Calvert and Charles county teachers? That seems more like EQUAL pay to me.



Not in this thread.


----------



## GW8345

Again, if the raise is in the contract, signed by the county, why doesn't the union just take the county to court, it should be an easy case to win, unless there is something else in that contract that states the raise was conditional and in that case, the county may have a case for not paying the raise.

So, why hasn't the union taken legal action?


----------



## glitch

SG_Player1974 said:


> Personally I'm tired of all this BS about equal pay for SMC teachers.....
> 
> You know what.... YOU WANT EQUAL PAY..... then fine! Give these teachers equal pay! BUT... guess what?
> 
> YOUR AZZ BETTER BE IN THAT DAMN SCHOOL FOR 8 HOURS A DAY... MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY..... YEAR ROUND!!! No more summers off!
> 
> You want summer off... I hope you got 100 days of vacation saved up beloved teacher! JUST LIKE THE REST OF US WHO HAVEN'T RECEIVED A RAISE IN YEARS!
> 
> Oh yeah..... FORGET ABOUT THE TEACHER IN-SERVICE DAYS! GONE!!!! You can earn your money just like the rest of us.... WORKING and teaching the children you are PAID to teach!
> 
> PUT UP OR SHUT UP AND *JOIN THE REST OF THE WORKING WORLD*!



I think it would be better if the rest of the working world joined the teachers. I bet most office job workers wouldn't last a week, let alone the 180 days teachers spend with students. 

You need to get over yourself. I'd address each of your 'arguments' but they've been addressed numerous times by numerous other individuals in the many other threads regarding this issue. It's the same tired opposition spouted over and over by individuals that really don't have a clue about teaching as a profession.


----------



## SG_Player1974

glitch said:


> It's the same tired opposition spouted over and over by individuals that really don't have a clue about teaching as a profession.



The funny thing is that this same argument could be made for teachers that have no clue about the work required at other professions! Every profession has its problems and points to complain about. The difference here is that people are expected to instantly agree with or sympothize with teachers. Well, I believe that some people do and some people do not. I am one of those that do not. I served for 10 years active duty! I currently work in a job where I have not seen a raise in almost 4 years. Not gonna see me shed a tear for teachers. 

Dont confuse sympothy for their plight with agreement on their course of action!



			
				GW8345 said:
			
		

> So, why hasn't the union taken legal action?



Would really like to see the answer to this...


----------



## GW8345

glitch said:


> I think it would be better if the rest of the working world joined the teachers. I bet most office job workers wouldn't last a week, let alone the 180 days teachers spend with students.
> 
> You need to get over yourself. I'd address each of your 'arguments' but they've been addressed numerous times by numerous other individuals in the many other threads regarding this issue. It's the same tired opposition spouted over and over by individuals that really don't have a clue about teaching as a profession.



Really

Bet teachers would wet their pants when they are told they have to report to work when there is three inches of snow on the ground or take a vacation day. Wonder what they would do when they find out that the company does not pay them for the time they take for lunch and that they have to make up that time. How about when they want to take 2 weeks off around Christmas and a week for Easter but has to use vacation time, or don't have tenure, don't have a union to protect them when their work performs is below standard, are graded on their performance, can't blame anyone else for their poor performance?


----------



## GURPS

Radiant1 said:


> Some kids are just stupid with a low IQ and *some just don't want to learn*,





and what happens to these students - instead of being collated into some school for losers, the smarter children are made to suffer, while the teacher is forced to deal with the dregs that should otherwise be put or or moved elsewhere ....


----------



## GW8345

SG_Player1974 said:


> Would really like to see the answer to this...



Yea, I'm still waiting for that answer. I'm guessing there's someting in the contract that says the raise was contiditional and that the union/teachers really don't have a case but they would rather try this in the court of public opinion instead of the court of law.


----------



## afjess1989

Bushy23 said:


> It's time we put things in perspective and pay them for what they do - babysit! We can get that for minimum wage. That's right. Let's give them $3.00 an hour and only the hours they worked; not any of that silly planning time, or any time they spend before or after school. That ...would be $19.50 a day (7:45 to............ 3:00 PM with 45 min. off for lunch and plan-- that equals 6 1/2 hours). Each parent should pay $19.50 a day for these teachers to baby-sit their children. Now how many students do they teach in a day...maybe 30? So that's $19.50 x 30 = $585.00 a day. However, remember they only work 180 days a year!!! I am not going to pay them for any vacations. LET'S SEE.... That's $585 X 180= $105,300 per year. (Hold on! My calculator needs new batteries).What about those special education teachers and the ones with Master's degrees? Well, we could pay them minimum wage ($7.75), and just to be fair, round it off to $8.00 an hour. That would be $8 X 6 1/2 hours X 30 children X 180 days = $280,800 per year. Wait a minute -- there's something wrong here! There sure is!
> 
> The average teacher's salary (nation wide) is $50,000. $50,000/180 days = $277.77/per day/30 students=$9.25/6.5 hours = $1.42 per hour per student--a very inexpensive baby-sitter and they even EDUCATE your kids!) WHAT A DEAL!!!!



Where do you get this 30 students a day crap? When I went through high school there were 8 periods in a day. Each preiod a teacher had about 25-30 kids in the classroom. So 30 kids a DAY is not accurate.


----------



## GW8345

afjess1989 said:


> Where do you get this 30 students a day crap? When I went through high school there were 8 periods in a day. Each preiod a teacher had about 25-30 kids in the classroom. So 30 kids a DAY is not accurate.



That's high school, what about grades K thru 5?


----------



## awpitt

afjess1989 said:


> Where do you get this 30 students a day crap? When I went through high school there were 8 periods in a day. Each preiod a teacher had about 25-30 kids in the classroom. So 30 kids a DAY is not accurate.



While middle and high school teachers see on average 170 different students each day, there are still 25-30 in their classroom at any given time.


----------



## So_what

Gilligan said:


> At least one thread respondent has, I noticed, asked to see that language. Is it secret?..or is it out there and I missed it?



It was out there, just had to look for it  http://www.smcps.org/hr/employee-benefits

Go to the bottom of the page under "Association Agreements" "Collective Education Association of St. Mary’s County Agreement" is the PDF of the agreement. 

I didn't read the whole 71 pages but found the salary section (page 36). Everything for the next couple of pages is for the 2013/2014 school year. Then it says "School Year 2014-2015: To Be Determined See Article 14, Duration"

Drop down to page 39 and it says "The following sections of this agreement will be subject to open negotiations for 2014-2015, 2015-2016, and 2016-2017."
Article 11 is Salary so it seems it is open for negotiations. However going further it also says "The Board and the Association agree to continue a joint study committee to be convened as requested by either team and comprised of up to three representatives from the Board and three from the Association. The purpose of the committee will be to explore and make recommendations in areas of interest.

I take that to mean either the union or school board can request negotiations for salary adjustments. If the union didn't ask I would guess everything stays the same :shrug:

Also noted while scrolling through to get to the referenced area that they've got some pretty good benefits and perks. Bonus for this, extra pay for that. Looks like a pretty good medical deal also.


----------



## SG_Player1974

Bushy23 said:


> It's time we put things in perspective and pay them for what they do - babysit! We can get that for minimum wage. That's right. Let's give them $3.00 an hour and only the hours they worked; not any of that silly planning time, or any time they spend before or after school. That ...would be $19.50 a day (7:45 to............ 3:00 PM with 45 min. off for lunch and plan-- that equals 6 1/2 hours). Each parent should pay $19.50 a day for these teachers to baby-sit their children. Now how many students do they teach in a day...maybe 30? So that's $19.50 x 30 = $585.00 a day. However, remember they only work 180 days a year!!! I am not going to pay them for any vacations. LET'S SEE.... That's $585 X 180= $105,300 per year. (Hold on! My calculator needs new batteries).What about those special education teachers and the ones with Master's degrees? Well, we could pay them minimum wage ($7.75), and just to be fair, round it off to $8.00 an hour. That would be $8 X 6 1/2 hours X 30 children X 180 days = $280,800 per year. Wait a minute -- there's something wrong here! There sure is!
> 
> The average teacher's salary (nation wide) is $50,000. $50,000/180 days = $277.77/per day/30 students=$9.25/6.5 hours = $1.42 per hour per student--a very inexpensive baby-sitter and they even EDUCATE your kids!) WHAT A DEAL!!!!



Ahhh yes. This reminds me of that mindless study that comes out every year about how a mother should be paid hundereds of thousands of dollars each year because they are a cook, clothes washer, babysitter, blah-blah....

Well.. what most people fail to see is that this is called MULTI-TASKING at your job! I think that just about 90% of employed people do this. Should they get to calculate their wage according to EVERY task they do and pretend like they do EVERYTHING... for 8+ hours a day?

Lets see... currently I do engineering work on 5 different programs. So... lets see... average wage of a degreed engineer in this area is ~$75-80K/year. I guess that means that I should be seeing around ~$400K/year. Should I go on to the administrative and managerial work that I do?


----------



## afjess1989

GW8345 said:


> That's high school, what about grades K thru 5?



So she is only factoring K-5 then. What about rest of the teachers? And of the person who asked "when does a student in st Mary's tell a teacher to #### off" I went to leonardtown high school and I saw on more than one occasion a student telling a teacher to #### off. I think the teachers should get pay raises based on how well they teach. In the real world don't we get pay raises based on our quality of work.  I've seen first hand teachers (who are Still teaching) that just dont give a Damn.

 For Example, a teacher who we will call Mr.Z gives everyone As (100 points) at the beginning of the school year, it's the student job to keep the A. Well to keep that A you need to show up and turn In homework and classwork. So little Johnny gets points for just showing up let's say 25 points for that.  The teacher assigns classwork that he goes over that's another 25 points. Then he says here's tonight's homework. Let's go over tonight's homework in class today the MR.Z does 20 out 25 problems. Student says well that's half way done I'll turn it in anyway. He does so the next day teachers grades it as fully completed and gives the 50 points. 

How is a student learning anything if the teacher does all the work? Teachers should get what they give and if a teacher is teaching like that they should not get pay raise.


----------



## afjess1989

awpitt said:


> While middle and high school teachers see on average 170 different students each day, there are still 25-30 in their classroom at any given time.



Yes but she said 30 a DAY.


----------



## GW8345

afjess1989 said:


> So she is only factoring K-5 then. What about rest of the teachers? And of the person who asked "when does a student in st Mary's tell a teacher to #### off" I went to leonardtown high school and I saw on more than one occasion a student telling a teacher to #### off. I think the teachers should get pay raises based on how well they teach. *In the real world don't we get pay raises based on our quality of work.*  I've seen first hand teachers (who are Still teaching) that just dont give a Damn.
> 
> For Example, a teacher who we will call Mr.Z gives everyone As (100 points) at the beginning of the school year, it's the student job to keep the A. Well to keep that A you need to show up and turn In homework and classwork. So little Johnny gets points for just showing up let's say 25 points for that.  The teacher assigns classwork that he goes over that's another 25 points. Then he says here's tonight's homework. Let's go over tonight's homework in class today the MR.Z does 20 out 25 problems. Student says well that's half way done I'll turn it in anyway. He does so the next day teachers grades it as fully completed and gives the 50 points.
> 
> How is a student learning anything if the teacher does all the work? Teachers should get what they give and if a teacher is teaching like that they should not get pay raise.



And you don't think people don't get bitched out by coworker and told to eff off, too bad they can't send their coworker to the principals office like you can send a student.


----------



## GW8345

afjess1989 said:


> Yes but she said 30 a DAY.



Which is a correct statement, the poster did not quantify what they were basing that figure on, I provided an example so that figure is still correct, a K thru 5 teacher only handles 30 students a day.


----------



## afjess1989

GW8345 said:


> I'mk not sure what job you do but that's a BS statement. I've seen many workers get pay raises, bonus, promotions for their quality of work.



That's what I said. We get pay raises based on the quality of the work. if we do good work we get a pay raise. I fail to see how that's a BS statement.


----------



## GW8345

afjess1989 said:


> That's what I said. We get pay raises based on the quality of the work. if we do good work we get a pay raise. I fail to see how that's a BS statement.



Sorry, misread that statement, my apologies.

I editted my post to remove that statement.


----------



## afjess1989

GW8345 said:


> And you don't think people don't get bitched out by coworker and told to eff off, too bad they can't send their coworker to the principals office like you can send a student.



We are adults. We know how to handle that type of situation in the workplace.


----------



## Hank

GW8345 said:


> Sorry, misread that statement, my apologies.
> 
> I editted my post to remove that statement.



:confusedoldman:


----------



## GW8345

afjess1989 said:


> We are adults. We know how to handle that type of situation in the workplace.



True, but it does create a hostile work enviroment and compaines don't want to deal with it so they turn a blind eye most of the time. It's easier to send a student to the principals office then to deal with an abusive coworker/boss.


----------



## SG_Player1974

Hank said:


> :confusedoldman:



:trollwhonevercontributestothisforuminanyway:


----------



## Radiant1

GW8345 said:


> Really
> 
> Bet teachers would wet their pants when they are told they have to report to work when there is three inches of snow on the ground or take a vacation day. Wonder what they would do when they find out that the company does not pay them for the time they take for lunch and that they have to make up that time. How about when they want to take 2 weeks off around Christmas and a week for Easter but has to use vacation time, or don't have tenure, don't have a union to protect them when their work performs is below standard, are graded on their performance, can't blame anyone else for their poor performance?



Have you evern been a teacher? Do you have a family member who is a teacher? If not, then you are making grandiose assumptions about teachers in general. In other words,  you're just talking out of your ass.  



GURPS said:


> and what happens to these students - instead of being collated into some school for losers, the smarter children are made to suffer, while the teacher is forced to deal with the dregs that should otherwise be put or or moved elsewhere ....



Yep. The teachers don't make those rules, but they have to live by them.


----------



## SG_Player1974

Radiant1 said:


> Have you evern been a teacher? Do you have a family member who is a teacher? If not, then you are making grandiose assumptions about teachers in general. In other words,  you're just talking out of your ass.



I do. My sister is and has been a middle school teacher for 17 years in the greater Detroit area. Would you like to debate on exactly who has the harder job now? BTW.. she is underpaid and they still pass out and grade homework! NEXT...



			
				Radiant1 said:
			
		

> Yep. The teachers don't make those rules, but they have to live by them.



As do the rest of us... which is exactly the point!


----------



## GW8345

Radiant1 said:


> Have you evern been a teacher? Do you have a family member who is a teacher? If not, then you are making grandiose assumptions about teachers in general. In other words,  you're just talking out of your ass.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. The teachers don't make those rules, but they have to live by them.



I did a tour as an instructor in the Navy but no, I've never been a teacher, didn’t know one must have experience in the profession in order to have an opinion. Have you ever been in the military?


----------



## Radiant1

SG_Player1974 said:


> I do. My sister is and has been a middle school teacher for 17 years in the greater Detroit area. Would you like to debate on exactly who has the harder job now? BTW.. she is underpaid and they still pass out and grade homework! NEXT...
> 
> 
> 
> As do the rest of us... which is exactly the point!



I never attempted to debate who's job is harder, that was your thing. I think that subjective and just about everyone thinks their job is difficult.  All I've said is that the teachers are due whatever was agreed upon.

If that's the point, then perhaps you could fight on behalf of the teachers to garner what they're owed? Apparently someone isn't playing by the rules, and it's not the teachers.



GW8345 said:


> I did a tour as an instructor in the Navy but no, I've never been a teacher, didn’t know one must have experience in the profession in order to have an opinion. Have you ever been in the military?



You certainly do need to know what you're talking about before you spout off about what other people will or will not do in any given situation.


----------



## GW8345

Radiant1 said:


> I never attempted to debate who's job is harder, that was your thing. I think that subjective and just about everyone thinks their job is difficult.  All I've said is that the teachers are due whatever was agreed upon.
> 
> If that's the point, then perhaps you could fight on behalf of the teachers to garner what they're owed? Apparently someone isn't playing by the rules, and it's not the teachers.
> 
> 
> 
> You certainly do need to know what you're talking about before you spout off about what other people will or will not do in any given situation.


So if you know so much, explain to the members why the union hasn't taken the county to court yet instead of trying this issue in the court of public opinion.

You also didn't answer my question, have you ever served in the military?


----------



## Radiant1

GW8345 said:


> So if you know so much, explain to the members why the union hasn't taken the county to court yet instead of trying this issue in the court of public opinion.



I don't know, nor do I care. I don't care because it doesn't change the teacher's right to stick to basics. Are you really that upset because Johnny and Suzy won't get as much homework this school year? Do you truly think that all teachers are expected to go above and beyond their contractual obligations simply because Johnny Jumpup does so in some other career venue?



GW8345 said:


> You also didn't answer my question, have you ever served in the military?



I have not; however, I was raised Navy/Air Force, my brother was Army, my uncle was Marines, and I currently work with Navy so it's not as if I'm ignorant on the subject of the military. Even so, I have never purported to state what military members will or will not do in any given situation because, unlike you, I don't talk out of my ass. 

Although I do think teachers deserve a raise, I never once thought this was about unions, equality, or who is tougher than who. I think this is about contractual obligations owed, nothing more and nothing less.


----------



## GW8345

Radiant1 said:


> I don't know, nor do I care. I don't care because it doesn't change the teacher's right to stick to basics. Are you really that upset because Johnny and Suzy won't get as much homework this school year? Do you truly think that all teachers are expected to go above and beyond their contractual obligations simply because Johnny Jumpup does so in some other career venue?
> 
> 
> 
> I have not; however, I was raised Navy/Air Force, my brother was Army, my uncle was Marines, and I currently work with Navy so it's not as if I'm ignorant on the subject of the military. Even so, I have never purported to state what military members will or will not do in any given situation because, unlike you, I don't talk out of my ass.
> 
> Although I do think teachers deserve a raise, I never once thought this was about unions, equality, or who is tougher than who. I think this is about contractual obligations owed, nothing more and nothing less.



Ok, the rule of law means nothing to you then, if you are wronged by someone you don’t need to pursue it legally, you can just do whatever you need to do to make it right, why have all those pesky contract laws then.

If the union/association representing the teachers refuses to take the county to court over “promised” pay raises that are in a legal binding document that’s telling me that those raises weren’t really promised after all, that there is a clause in the contract that allows the county to forego those raises legally. See, this nation follows the rule of law, if the raises are unconditionally stipulated in the contract and the county does not abide by the contract they signed then the union/association should take them to court and get what is legally owed them instead of threatening to do bare minimum while asking for additional pay. But hey, let’s blindly agree with teachers because after all, they work so hard and are so underpaid, and after all, think of the children.

In addition; so I talk out my ass because you don’t agree with my opinion, guess I can say same about you then.  Are you a teacher?


----------



## SG_Player1974

Radiant1 said:


> ...unlike you, I don't talk out of my ass.



Oh really..... what about this?



Radiant1 said:


> I don't know, nor do I care. I don't care because it doesn't change the teacher's right to stick to basics.



The answer to this question is at the root of this whole conversation! The teachers are saying that contractually they are owed more money YET... the union refuses to *legally* pursue this against the county. At least.... nothing has been provided to the contrary.

So yes... in not providing the answer to this simple question yet posting in such opposition... you are talking out of your ass.


----------



## Homeland

GW8345 said:


> So if you know so much, explain to the members why the union hasn't taken the county to court yet instead of trying this issue in the court of public opinion.
> 
> You also didn't answer my question, have you ever served in the military?



Why do they have to take them to court?  Why not just abide by what they are required to do in the contract?  Nothing makes them work outside of work in the contract.  Why do you have an issue with this?


----------



## Homeland

GW8345 said:


> Ok, the rule of law means nothing to you then, if you are wronged by someone you don’t need to pursue it legally, you can just do whatever you need to do to make it right, why have all those pesky contract laws then.
> 
> If the union/association representing the teachers refuses to take the county to court over “promised” pay raises that are in a legal binding document that’s telling me that those raises weren’t really promised after all, that there is a clause in the contract that allows the county to forego those raises legally. See, this nation follows the rule of law, if the raises are unconditionally stipulated in the contract and the county does not abide by the contract they signed then the union/association should take them to court and get what is legally owed them instead of threatening to do bare minimum while asking for additional pay. But hey, let’s blindly agree with teachers because after all, they work so hard and are so underpaid, and after all, think of the children.
> 
> In addition; so I talk out my ass because you don’t agree with my opinion, guess I can say same about you then.  Are you a teacher?



So is it the rule of law which is absolute with you?


----------



## Gilligan

Homeland said:


> Why do they have to take them to court?




Umm..because that is the standard route for resolving breaches and other contract disputes????  "Taking someone to court" is a euphemism..it means a legal action has been filed and the court's ultimate intervention requested. The majority of cases are settled between the parties without a judge having to render any decision at all.  "Public publicity stunts", on the other hand, are nothing but exactly that. For what?..why that instead of a cut-n-dry legal action?


----------



## Homeland

Gilligan said:


> Umm..because that is the standard route for resolving breaches and other contract disputes????  "Taking someone to court" is a euphemism..it means a legal action has been filed and the court's ultimate intervention requested. The majority of cases are settled between the parties without a judge having to render any decision at all.  "Public publicity stunts", on the other hand, are nothing but exactly that. For what?..why that instead of a cut-n-dry legal action?



I worked in an industry where there were allegations of breach of contract often.  I can't remember a single time taking them to court.  Most often they were worked out in some sort of negotiation or arbitration prior to ever filing suit!


----------



## Gilligan

Homeland said:


> I worked in an industry where there were allegations of breach of contract often.  I can't remember a single time taking them to court.  Most often they were worked out in some sort of negotiation or arbitration prior to ever filing suit!



Sure. Nor argument there. Where did "highly publicized publicity stunts" factor in to those negotiations and arbitration?  I negotiate international sales contracts for both services and products....(ick!)..so I know a "little" about contract law and have the books on the shelf to cover the rest. Most every contract ..scratch that..EVERY contract I sign has an arbitration clause and specifies specifically the legal jurisdiction for resolving disputes.  Carefully planned and orchestrated public stunts that are closely coordinated with local media...not one of those


----------



## Homeland

Gilligan said:


> Sure. Nor argument there. Where did "highly publicized publicity stunts" factor in to those negotiations and arbitration?  I negotiate international sales contracts for both services and products....(ick!)..so I know a "little" about contract law and have the books on the shelf to cover the rest. Most every contract ..scratch that..EVERY contract I sign has an arbitration clause and specifies specifically the legal jurisdiction for resolving disputes.  Carefully planned and orchestrated public stunts that are closely coordinated with local media...not one of those



Public relations activity is done all the time prior to lawsuits with larger companies.  They often seek to gain public support prior to filing.  

None of that is really important though in this case.  Many people are saying the teachers should follow the rule of law.  I think it is pretty clear, based on the contents of their contract that they are doing EXACTLY that!  They are following the contract to the letter of the law.  If their bargaining unit chooses to do it this way rather than hire those with the sheepskins, that is their decision.  Some of those same people on here saying the teachers should strike because they have a contract, seem to be ignoring the fact that what the teachers are now doing is abiding by their contract.


----------



## Radiant1

GW8345 said:


> Ok, the rule of law means nothing to you then, if you are wronged by someone you don’t need to pursue it legally, you can just do whatever you need to do to make it right, why have all those pesky contract laws then.



If the teachers "back to basics" was breaking the law, then you'd have a point, but they're not and you don't.



GW8345 said:


> If the union/association representing the teachers refuses to take the county to court over “promised” pay raises that are in a legal binding document that’s telling me that those raises weren’t really promised after all, that there is a clause in the contract that allows the county to forego those raises legally. See, this nation follows the rule of law, if the raises are unconditionally stipulated in the contract and the county does not abide by the contract they signed then the union/association should take them to court and get what is legally owed them instead of threatening to do bare minimum while asking for additional pay. But hey, let’s blindly agree with teachers because after all, they work so hard and are so underpaid, and after all, think of the children.



If I blindly agreed with anything, then I'd agree with you now wouldn't I? Heh. 

Truly, the bottom line is it doesn't matter if the county is in breech of contract because the teachers have a right to go "back to he basics". They aren't violating anything by NOT going above and beyond what is expected or paid. Again, you and others may do that, but that doesn't mean everyone else has to. What they're doing is not wrong.



GW8345 said:


> In addition; so I talk out my ass because you don’t agree with my opinion, guess I can say same about you then.  Are you a teacher?



I have been in the past (not public school), and I also come from a family of teachers (two being in SMCPS and another on the way), so I know a bit of what I'm talking about. I realize you're offended by my having said you are talking out of your ass, but I've been surrounded by both educators and military personnel so dude just give it up. Unlike you, it's not my thing to speak out of turn or discuss things I know nothing about.

If the following is an opinion, then so be it, but you're still talking out of your ass.


GW8345 said:


> Bet teachers would wet their pants when they are told they have to report to work when there is three inches of snow on the ground or take a vacation day. Wonder what they would do when they find out that the company does not pay them for the time they take for lunch and that they have to make up that time. How about when they want to take 2 weeks off around Christmas and a week for Easter but has to use vacation time, or don't have tenure, don't have a union to protect them when their work performs is below standard, are graded on their performance, can't blame anyone else for their poor performance?





SG_Player1974 said:


> Oh really..... what about this?
> 
> The answer to this question is at the root of this whole conversation! The teachers are saying that contractually they are owed more money YET... the union refuses to *legally* pursue this against the county. At least.... nothing has been provided to the contrary.
> 
> So yes... in not providing the answer to this simple question yet posting in such opposition... you are talking out of your ass.



See above.



Jesus Christ people, it's not hard to understand. The union doesn't even _have _to sue the county. The teachers are saying if they won't get paid as promised, then they won't give any extra. The teachers are breaking no laws by sticking to their end of the bargain, no more and no less. Seriously, I never thought refusing to dole out homework to Johnny and Suzy or supervise after school activities would warrant such venomous action against those who actually educate your children. UFB.



Homeland said:


> None of that is really important though in this case.  Many people are saying the teachers should follow the rule of law.  I think it is pretty clear, based on the contents of their contract that they are doing EXACTLY that!  They are following the contract to the letter of the law.  If their bargaining unit chooses to do it this way rather than hire those with the sheepskins, that is their decision.  Some of those same people on here saying the teachers should strike because they have a contract, seem to be ignoring the fact that what the teachers are now doing is abiding by their contract.



YES! YES! SOMEONE GETS IT!  :


----------



## glitch

For me, personally, this whole argument comes down to the following. Do you value education? If you don't then of course you're not going to support teachers in whatever they do to attempt to increase their salaries. If you do value education, you need to understand that there is research out there that has identified positive correlations between increases in teacher income and student performance (see first link below). Researchers have also identified a positive correlation between teacher retention rate and student performance (see second link below). For me personally, some of the most telling information that I've seen is the following excerpt (link to full article is the third below). "Dissatisfaction with teacher salary receives the most publicity for teacher attrition. The entry-level salary is among the lowest paid for professions requiring a bachelor's degree. The salary scale increases slightly with additional education and experience but is the same for all grade levels and subject areas. Salaries paid to teachers have not kept pace with the cost of living. In 1987-88 and 1993-94, teachers' salaries actually reveal a decline of 4% each year once adjustments were made for inflation." So not only do teachers make less than others with similar education, they've also experienced a decline in their pay since the 1908s. Can people in other professions, with similar educational backgrounds, make the same claim? Personally, I don't know for a fact that they can but I would find it hard to believe. 

The bottom line is this: if you want good teachers and you want them to stick around, pay them well. Like many have posted in this thread already, there are hordes of people of there looking for jobs but does that necessarily mean you want them teaching your kids? Would you be fine with someone doing your taxes that had a degree in Philosophy? How about some representing you in court that had a degree in Horticulture? We need good teachers (that means people trained to teach, not some random person who will do the job because they're hurting for cash) and we need to pay them what they're worth. Period.

https://cepa.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/loebpage.pdf

http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/teacherbeat/TchTrnStAch AERJ R&R not blind.pdf

http://www.unc.edu/~wdevane/paper.html


----------



## GW8345

Wow, if you don't support the teachers you don't value education. Also, it seems the county has to follow the law but the teacher don't.

I'm still waiting to hear from all the supporters why the teachers don't take the county to court, after all, it's in the contract that they are supposed to receive a pay increase so why not just take them to court instead of doing a publicity stunt that will back fire on them? 

Here's what I see happening, the teachers are going to scale back what they normally do and the parents are going to notice the difference and get up set, but they are not going to get upset at the county, they are going to get upset at the teachers and what support they would have will be gone. What's the reason for homework, to re-enforce that days lesson so when the kids don't get homework, they don't retain what they need to know and it will show up on their tests and progress reports. 

Instead of the teachers pressuring their representatives to do the right thing they decided to manipulate people by going the emotional route, sorry, I refuse to be manipulated. If the teachers are in the right, take it to court, but since they haven't that tells me that don't have a case and a leg to stand on.


----------



## glitch

GW8345 said:


> Wow, if you don't support the teachers you don't value education. Also, it seems the county has to follow the law but the teacher don't.
> 
> I'm still waiting to hear from all the supporters why the teachers don't take the county to court, after all, it's in the contract that they are supposed to receive a pay increase so why not just take them to court instead of doing a publicity stunt that will back fire on them?
> 
> Here's what I see happening, the teachers are going to scale back what they normally do and the parents are going to notice the difference and get up set, but they are not going to get upset at the county, they are going to get upset at the teachers and what support they would have will be gone. What's the reason for homework, to re-enforce that days lesson so when the kids don't get homework, they don't retain what they need to know and it will show up on their tests and progress reports.
> 
> Instead of the teachers pressuring their representatives to do the right thing they decided to manipulate people by going the emotional route, sorry, I refuse to be manipulated. If the teachers are in the right, take it to court, but since they haven't that tells me that don't have a case and a leg to stand on.



I gave you the information, do with it what you will.


----------



## Radiant1

GW8345 said:


> Also, it seems the county has to follow the law but the teacher don't.



You are again implying the teachers are breaking the law. If so, how?


----------



## GW8345

glitch said:


> I gave you the information, do with it what you will.



I don't believe you told me why the teachers aren't taking the county to court, refresh my memory please.


----------



## GW8345

Radiant1 said:


> You are again implying the teachers are breaking the law. If so, how?



IAW the contract, aren't the teachers supposed to teach our children, if homework is not part of teaching then why is it ever assigned in the first place?


----------



## glitch

GW8345 said:


> I don't believe you told me why the teachers aren't taking the county to court, refresh my memory please.



EASMC and the teachers met to discuss possible solutions to the problem, developed the Back to Basics plan, and voted to carry it out this school year. If I had to venture a guess as to why they chose to go this route and not take SMCPS to court, and this is purely conjecture on my part, I would say that it would have to do with the fact that SMCPS and EASMC have a negotiated "Agreement". If you read the document, the word agreement is clearly stated in the preamble and is capitalized. This would lead me to believe that the agreement does not meet the 6 legal specifications for a contract and therefore wouldn't be enforceable by the court system. But like I said, that's simply a guess on my part.


----------



## FollowTheMoney

itsrequired said:


> Very interesting post.  Could you answer this question.  Would you agree that there are some military members, at least 50% of  enlisted people in this survey complaining about pay?


I would say 50% only if, of those enlisted surveyed, was a group of reservist and/or guard troops only. 
Every regular enlisted man/woman, knows exactly what the next enlisted man/woman, or officer is paid. There really is no acrimony in the ranks when it comes
to pay because everyone knows what everyone makes and if an enlisted or officer wants more they have to wait for time in grade increases, every two years automatic,
or work hard to be selected for promotion, every branch is different.

In the Army to go from Specialist/Corporal E-4 to Sergeant E-5 one must go before a promotion board. Points are granted for performance at the board to a maximum of
200 points. Added to past military achievements, awards, range proficiency, physical fitness etc. If I remember correctly could total to a maximum overall points of 1000. So,
say a soldier gets a total of 780 promotion points for the MOS of Information Technology Specialist (25B). The Army, lost through attrition, needs 37 more (25B) sergeant E-5's,
noting that there are 1,759 E-4 soldiers eligible for promotion having gone before a promotion board, calculate that of the 37 highest scored E-4's, the lowest score of
the highest being 790. So they publish that number. All those soldiers in that MOS with a score greater to or higher than 790 get promoted to E-5. That is for every MOS,
enlisted job, in the Army. So that one soldier, in this case, missed being promoted by 10 points. So, working to get a better PT score would have made the difference? Maybe going
for that expert marksmanship badge would have done it? Taking that extra collage class? It takes hard work and dedication to get promoted beyond E-4 and above.
And every US Army regular full time active duty soldier knows it. 

These, I believe false surveys, are trying to compare the civilian world of employment to the military world, and that can not be done fairly. Are there unhappy soldiers, yup.
But not to the degree others would have you believe. A single (unmarried) soldier has everything taken care of for them to this extent... housing, food (breakfast, lunch
and dinner) work uniforms (initial issue), health and dental, recreational and more. The basic pay for a single soldier at the rank of sergeant E-5 after 4 years of service,
living in the barracks, eating at the chow hall, before any additional allowances (like combat pay, flight pay) is $30,661.20. And if he/she is smart, has no debt. And also
pays no rent, doesn't _have_ to buy food. Doesn't pay for any of life's major expenses like we do. Does pay for their own personal clothes, extra or replacement
uniforms, a car if they want and night outs and the like. Do you think there really is a complaint there? 

Here are some additional allowances soldiers can receive, single if qualified, and married...

ARMY FOOD ALLOWANCE
The Basic Allowance for Subsistence is used to pay for food for enlisted Soldiers and officers authorized to eat off post. Most Soldiers who qualify for this Army food allowance receive more than $200 per month.

ARMY HOUSING ALLOWANCE
The Basic Allowance for Housing offsets the cost of housing when Soldiers live off post. BAH rates are based on location, rank and family status. This Army housing allowance is the second-largest piece of compensation for most Soldiers.
*(For an E-5 in the Washington DC metro area: With dependents $2,175 without dependents $1,791, per month extra)*

ARMY CLOTHING ALLOWANCE
Enlisted Soldiers receive an annual Army clothing allowance to replace uniforms and uniform decorations. For jobs that require civilian clothes, the military provides a civilian clothing allowance.

ARMY COST OF LIVING ALLOWANCE
Soldiers assigned to high-cost locations in the continental U.S. and overseas are paid a Cost of Living Allowance. This Army COLA offsets the higher costs of food, transportation, clothing and other nonhousing items. Higher housing costs are covered separately by the Basic Allowance for Housing.

ARMY MOVING ALLOWANCE
The Army pays a moving allowance for the transportation of household goods during a permanent change-of-station move. In addition, a Temporary Lodging Allowance covers the cost of temporary housing at the beginning and end of a move. To further offset moving costs, a Dislocation Allowance is also granted for permanent change-of-station moves.

FAMILY SEPARATION ALLOWANCE
Soldiers assigned or deployed to locations where the military will not move families receive an Army Family Separation Allowance of $250 per month to cover expenses incurred during a Soldier’s separation from their family. Soldiers are also entitled to the allowance if their families are unable to accompany them overseas due to medical reasons.

So as you can see, there really is no comparing to civilian sector employment or pay.
And as far as spouses go, if the Army wanted a soldier to have a husband or wife they would have issued them one. So they are damn fortunate to have these extra allowances and they know it. 
There are always going to be rabble rousers in any selected group. But the majority of those serving this country are content in their compensation.


----------



## GW8345

glitch said:


> EASMC and the teachers met to discuss possible solutions to the problem, developed the Back to Basics plan, and voted to carry it out this school year.



So why did the EASMC decide to not take the county to court, probably because they know they don't have a case so they decided to do this publicity stunt in homes of winning the case in the court of public opinion.


----------



## Radiant1

GW8345 said:


> IAW the contract, aren't the teachers supposed to teach our children, if homework is not part of teaching then why is it ever assigned in the first place?



Heck if I know. If I had my druthers kids would never have homework.  

Homework isn't crucial for children to learn. It's not law that homework be given so please stop saying the teachers are breaking the law if they choose not to assign any. 

As for the court issue, I don't think anyone here is a power-that-be in the teachers union that decides those things so therefore we can't answer your question. You can be paranoid and suspicious as to why they haven't yet all you want, but that's your issue and not one based on known facts. All I know is that as a taxpayer I don't think it in our best interests for this to go to court so maybe the teachers are doing us a favor in the long run by taking this tactic.


----------



## glitch

GW8345 said:


> So why did the EASMC decide to not take the county to court, probably because they know they don't have a case so they decided to do this publicity stunt in homes of winning the case in the court of public opinion.



I told you what I thought, if you read my post. Don't understand why you're asking the same question I already answered once.


----------



## GW8345

Radiant1 said:


> Heck if I know. If I had my druthers kids would never have homework.
> 
> Homework isn't crucial for children to learn. It's not law that homework be given so please stop saying the teachers are breaking the law if they choose not to assign any.
> 
> As for the court issue, I don't think anyone here is a power-that-be in the teachers union that decides those things so therefore we can't answer your question. You can be paranoid and suspicious as to why they haven't yet all you want, but that's your issue and not one based on known facts. All I know is that as a taxpayer I don't think it in our best interests for this to go to court so maybe the teachers are doing us a favor in the long run by taking this tactic.



So you don't care if the contract puts conditions on the raise, only that it states the teachers are supposed to get a raise.

I'm all for teachers getting a raise they legally are entitled to, what I don't care is that instead of going about this issue in a legal, logical manner they decide to invoke public opinion and like you, most won't question the contract and side with the teachers without knowing all the facts.


----------



## GW8345

glitch said:


> I told you what I thought, if you read my post. Don't understand why you're asking the same question I already answered once.



You told me that they voted not to take it to court, you never told me why they voted that way, what was the reason for not taking it to court, what are they hiding?


----------



## glitch

GW8345 said:


> You told me that they voted not to take it to court, you never told me why they voted that way, what was the reason for not taking it to court, what are they hiding?



Are you serious? Please scroll up and read my post.


----------



## itsrequired

FollowTheMoney said:


> I would say 50% only if, of those enlisted surveyed, was a group of reservist and/or guard troops only.
> 
> So as you can see, there really is no comparing to civilian sector employment or pay.
> 
> Who ever said there was?
> 
> 
> There are always going to be rabble rousers in any selected group. But the majority of those serving this country are content in their compensation.



What the hell is all this tin man diatribe about?  Hillary, is that you?  GW8 stated that military people did not complain about their pay, that it was others doing the complaining.  I disagreed!  You came in with some rant about something else and I asked a question.  Reservist, active, National Guard, etc are all military people.  So thank you for your answer in which you agree with my statement!


----------



## itsrequired

GW8345 said:


> You told me that they voted not to take it to court, you never told me why they voted that way, what was the reason for not taking it to court, what are they hiding?



Who says they are hiding anything?  Is there a law which says they HAVE to go to court?  I know it's difficult for you to understand basic concepts, but they are doing their job and nothing more because that is what the contract you keep talking about specifies they have to do!  You keep saying show me the language in the contract about raises and I believe that has been done.  Show me the language where it says they have to give homework.


----------



## itsrequired

glitch said:


> Are you serious? Please scroll up and read my post.




You are beating a dead horse.  This guy, once he takes a stand is incapable of seeing the other side.


----------



## Gilligan

Homeland said:


> Public relations activity is done all the time prior to lawsuits with larger companies.  They often seek to gain public support prior to filing.  .



Toward what end??  What court proceeding or legal outcome would be affected by externalities like publicity stunts?  Yes, people "do stupid chit" all the time...but surely you are not going to base a moral equivalence on that?


----------



## SG_Player1974

itsrequired said:


> Who says they are hiding anything?  Is there a law which says they HAVE to go to court?  I know it's difficult for you to understand basic concepts, but they are doing their job and nothing more because that is what the contract you keep talking about specifies they have to do!  You keep saying show me the language in the contract about raises and I believe that has been done.  Show me the language where it says they have to give homework.



I think what needs to be said is that if the teachers are going to do this "back to basics" thing and they are not going to seek proper and legal means to get their raises then SHUT THE HELL UP AND DO IT! Get yourselves out of the public spotlight/national media with all the whining about your pay and either put up or shut up!

If I was reading meters for SMECO and they told me that I wasn't getting my contracted pay raise... I guess the solution for me would be to just "guess" at what your meters read because I'm going BACK TO BASICS and just submitting estimated statements. Who cares if my estimate is $200 more than actual usage? I dont need to call my union rep and attempt to get the contract enforced.... I can just do LESS WORK and it wont have any lasting effects on anyone else... RIGHT??


----------



## glitch

itsrequired said:


> You are beating a dead horse.  This guy, once he takes a stand is incapable of seeing the other side.



I figured that was the case but I was trying to give the guy the benefit of the doubt.


----------



## GW8345

glitch said:


> I told you what I thought, if you read my post. Don't understand why you're asking the same question I already answered once.



You stated your opinion as to why they did not take the county to court, I'm looking for facts, not opinion.


----------



## GW8345

itsrequired said:


> What the hell is all this tin man diatribe about?  Hillary, is that you?  GW8 stated that military people did not complain about their pay, that it was others doing the complaining.  I disagreed!  You came in with some rant about something else and I asked a question.  Reservist, active, National Guard, etc are all military people.  So thank you for your answer in which you agree with my statement!



Once again you take something I said and twist it around. I may not have clearly stated my the intent of my post was that you don't hear military people complaining PUBLICLY TO THE MEDIA about their pay. That survey you stated contained 2100 service personnel out of how many currently serving, that's a very small percentage and did they go to Navy Times or did Navy Times approach them? Did those military member send out a press release through their union?


----------



## Radiant1

GW8345 said:


> So you don't care if the contract puts conditions on the raise, only that it states the teachers are supposed to get a raise.
> 
> I'm all for teachers getting a raise they legally are entitled to, what I don't care is that instead of going about this issue in a legal, logical manner they decide to invoke public opinion and like you, most won't question the contract and side with the teachers without knowing all the facts.



Sure, conditions of the raise must be met, but all requirements on the part of teachers is being met so that's not the case here. 

Go ahead and keep grasping though. It's becoming amusing.



SG_Player1974 said:


> If I was reading meters for SMECO and they told me that I wasn't getting my contracted pay raise... I guess the solution for me would be to just "guess" at what your meters read because I'm going BACK TO BASICS and just submitting estimated statements. Who cares if my estimate is $200 more than actual usage? I dont need to call my union rep and attempt to get the contract enforced.... I can just do LESS WORK and it wont have any lasting effects on anyone else... RIGHT??



No.  If you were a SMECO meter reader who was not getting his contractual raise you would read the meter from your truck *as only required by your contract instead of going above and beyond and* getting out of the truck for a physical read and giving fido a dog treat when he barks at you while attempting to bite your ankles for having done so.

If you truly think that less homework and after school activities are going to have a "lasting effect" on children, then back the teachers up so they can get their promised contractual raise and they will go back to doing the extra work that they were never contractually obligated to do in the first place.


----------



## itsrequired

SG_Player1974 said:


> If I was reading meters for SMECO and they told me that I wasn't getting my contracted pay raise... I guess the solution for me would be to just "guess" at what your meters read because I'm going BACK TO BASICS and just submitting estimated statements. Who cares if my estimate is $200 more than actual usage? I dont need to call my union rep and attempt to get the contract enforced.... I can just do LESS WORK and it wont have any lasting effects on anyone else... RIGHT??



If you were working for SMECO and they violated your contract, you could strike.  The teachers can not.


----------



## itsrequired

GW8345 said:


> *Once again you take something I said and twist it around. I may not have clearly stated my the intent of my post was that you don't hear military people complaining PUBLICLY TO THE MEDIA about their pay. *



You really are stupid!  LMAO!  In the first sentence you accuse me of twisting what you said around, then in the second sentence you clarify what YOU MEANT to say!    

Boy, you sure do make this easy!


----------



## GW8345

Radiant1 said:


> Sure, conditions of the raise must be met, but all requirements on the part of teachers is being met so that's not the case here.
> 
> Go ahead and keep grasping though. It's becoming amusing.
> 
> 
> 
> No.  If you were a SMECO meter reader who was not getting his contractual raise you would read the meter from your truck *as only required by your contract instead of going above and beyond and* getting out of the truck for a physical read and giving fido a dog treat when he barks at you while attempting to bite your ankles for having done so.
> 
> If you truly think that less homework and after school activities are going to have a "lasting effect" on children, then back the teachers up so they can get their promised contractual raise and they will go back to doing the extra work that they were never contractually obligated to do in the first place.



How do you know the teachers are meeting all contractual requirements/conditions stated in the contract when you don't even know what the requirements/conditions stated in the contract are?


----------



## SG_Player1974

I'm tired of arguing with the blind followers....

Plain and simple! If the teachers were CONTRACTUALLY and LEGALLY promised a pay raise then they either should be getting that raise OR pursuing legal action to get the contract enforced to receive that raise!

There is no argument over this. Its a matter of law! I just do not see where you people think you have a leg to stand on and argue 

It sounds to me like the union didn't sew up all the loopholes in the contract and now the teachers are paying for it and trying to garner sympothy with the public. It sucks that this may be true as I am sure many of them deserve it but.... taking it out on the kids is not the way to go!


----------



## GW8345

itsrequired said:


> You really are stupid!  LMAO!  In the first sentence you accuse me of twisting what you said around, then in the second sentence you clarify what YOU MEANT to say!
> 
> Boy, you sure do make this easy!



If you go back to that post, you will noticed that *I asked Radiant1 how many military personnel SHE heard complaining*, not you, you had to go searching the internet to find something, I highly doubt you even subscribe to Navy Times so why don't you stop trolling and return to your rock.


----------



## Homeland

Gilligan said:


> Toward what end??  What court proceeding or legal outcome would be affected by externalities like publicity stunts?  Yes, people "do stupid chit" all the time...but surely you are not going to base a moral equivalence on that?



First, I'm not basing any moral equivalence on anything.  I'm merely pointing out, as you are, the way things work in the real world.  To answer your question, I doubt few court proceeding or legal outcome would e affected by publicity stunts, but I do believe that the right pr can keep something from a legal proceeding.  You must as well.  

Now, as far as contracts, I have given some thougt over that.  You said before if there was a breach of contract the courts are one means to resolve that, which I agree.  I will say though, if you were supplying someone with a product and they were in breach, you wold simply stop supplying them until it was resolved.  I don't believe teachers, like police and fire have the ability to stop delivering their service unless they resign.  Once they resign, they are no longer entitled to the proceeds of the contract.


----------



## Ken King

Who does one "bring action" against when a contract between two parties (teachers and BOE) was brought into turmoil by a third party (BOCC) that did not fund the required amount to cover said agreement?  Wouldn't the appropriate course of action be for the BOE to sue the BOCC for failure to fund the mandatory items, such as contractually obligated salaries, prior to the teachers suing the BOE?


----------



## BadGirl

Ken King said:


> Who does one "bring action" against when a contract between two parties (teachers and BOE) was brought into turmoil by a third party (BOCC) that did not fund the required amount to cover said agreement?  Wouldn't the appropriate course of action be for the BOE to sue the BOCC for failure to fund the mandatory items, such as contractually obligated salaries, prior to the teachers suing the BOE?


Or would the BOE be the one sued for their inability to appropriately budget/allocate and spend the money the BOCC gave them?


----------



## Ken King

BadGirl said:


> Or would the BOE be the one sued for their inability to appropriately budget/allocate and spend the money the BOCC gave them?



Or would it be the superintendent that jumped ship and ran for the hills?


----------



## kom526

Ken King said:


> Or would it be the superintendent that jumped ship and ran for the hills?



So much win!


----------



## BadGirl

Ken King said:


> Or would it be the superintendent that jumped ship and ran for the hills?



:BINGO:


----------



## Gilligan

Ken King said:


> Or would it be the superintendent that jumped ship and ran for the hills?




LOL...somewhere along the way, that WV job started looking better and better...


----------



## glitch

GW8345 said:


> You stated your opinion as to why they did not take the county to court, I'm looking for facts, not opinion.



Then call EASMC and ask.


----------



## FollowTheMoney

itsrequired said:


> What the hell is all this tin man diatribe about?  Hillary, is that you?  GW8 stated that military people did not complain about their pay, that it was others doing the complaining.  I disagreed!  You came in with some rant about something else and I asked a question.  Reservist, active, National Guard, etc are all military people.  So thank you for your answer in which you agree with my statement!


I am sure you are a most learned individual. Pardon me if you think that my long and researched post was for just your eyes only. There is a huge difference of attitude between regular active duty, reservist and national guard personnel.
A survey can not accurately gauge dissatisfaction in pay in the military unless each of these groups is separated out completely. Ask 2100 regular active duty service members, get a different answer from asking 2100 reservist from asking 2100 national guard.


----------



## Radiant1

GW8345 said:


> How do you know the teachers are meeting all contractual requirements/conditions stated in the contract when you don't even know what the requirements/conditions stated in the contract are?



I read it. 

_Article IV A 11 --SMCPS and the Association are mutually committed to a fair performance assessment process based on current educational research and agree to seek consensus outside of negotiations on a performance assessment tool and process. Until this time, performance assessment will continue to be based on the current version of TPAS, IRTPAS, or LPAS, or other appropriate performance assessment process currently being used._

I've not heard of one educator actually refusing these performance assessments. Remember, *it's not the county that has issue with the teachers, it's the teachers who have issue with the county*.


----------



## itsrequired

FollowTheMoney said:


> A survey can not accurately gauge dissatisfaction in pay in the military unless each of these groups is separated out completely. Ask 2100 regular active duty service members, get a different answer from asking 2100 reservist from asking 2100 national guard.



Never said it did.  I simply proved that military members do complain about their salary!  Thank you for agreeing with me and providing additional factual information.


----------



## glitch

GW8345 said:


> You stated your opinion as to why they did not take the county to court, I'm looking for facts, not opinion.



I took it upon myself to call EASMC and ask your question for you. The representative passed along the following information to me.

The 'contract' that most people are referring to is actually a collective bargaining agreement. The reason the document is an agreement and does not qualify as a contract is because in order for an agreement to be a contract there must be two parties agreeing to an exchange of goods and/or services. In other words, the teachers agree to teach and SMCPS agrees to pay them a specific amount. However, the way this county works is that the teachers are paid by SMCPS but the money comes from the BOCC. So, there cannot be a contract between the teachers and SMCPS because the money (i.e. good/service mentioned above) is coming from a 3rd party. Instead, there is a collective bargaining agreement. 

Because Maryland is not a Right to Strike state and the collective bargaining agreement is not enforceable by the court system, EASMC has very limited choices for work actions. Examples of work actions would include Work to Rule and Back to Basics. 

Nobody is hiding anything. You have all the facts (including quite a bit of research, that I doubt you read, in my previous posts). You're free to make your own decision about whether or not you support the teachers in their struggle for fair compensation.


----------



## SG_Player1974

glitch said:


> Because Maryland is not a Right to Strike state...



Does this ONLY apply to teachers as you speak of it here? It must... because if it applies to the entire Maryland workforce then, I know several organizations that have conducted several illegal strikes!


----------



## itsrequired

SG_Player1974 said:


> Does this ONLY apply to teachers as you speak of it here? It must... because if it applies to the entire Maryland workforce then, I know several organizations that have conducted several illegal strikes!



http://www.esmec.org/Position Papers/pp11.pdf

Teachers, cops, firemen that I know of.  Private organizations may strike until the cows come home.


----------



## glitch

SG_Player1974 said:


> Does this ONLY apply to teachers as you speak of it here? It must... because if it applies to the entire Maryland workforce then, I know several organizations that have conducted several illegal strikes!



See page 8 of the link below.

http://www.cepr.net/documents/state-public-cb-2014-03.pdf

Don't you find it odd that answers to every question you have seem to be found easily, either using Google or picking up a phone?


----------



## Makavide

glitch said:


> See page 8 of the link below.
> 
> http://www.cepr.net/documents/state-public-cb-2014-03.pdf
> 
> Don't you find it odd that answers to every question you have seem to be found easily, either using Google ...?



I guess some people didn't learn anything from "Google for Dummies" because there was no homework...


----------



## glitch

Makavide said:


> I guess some people didn't learn anything from "Google for Dummies" because there was no homework...



Maybe we should pay our teachers what they deserve and we'd have all the homework we could ever ask for.


----------



## intertidal

itsrequired said:


> http://www.esmec.org/Position Papers/pp11.pdf
> 
> Teachers, cops, firemen that I know of.  Private organizations may strike until the cows come home.



Public workers cannot strike in MD - whether they work for a city, county or the state. That lack of recourse leaves workers little besides relying on their unions to continue to talk and attempt collective bargaining - even when the other side is not willing to participate. At the very least, more unfair labor practice (ULP) complaints should be submitted. Because of the inability to strike, MD is more of a union-light state, an uncomfortable middle ground between states with full union rights (mostly northern) and the non-union (mostly southern) states.


----------



## intertidal

glitch said:


> Maybe we should pay our teachers what they deserve and we'd have all the homework we could ever ask for.



In an election year? Better to give raises to your "other" county workers - they are related to more voters.


----------



## tom88

There is no consequence to the BOCC even though this is an election year.  3 of the board members are not running for office, and the fourth has no opponent.


----------



## GW8345

glitch said:


> I took it upon myself to call EASMC and ask your question for you. The representative passed along the following information to me.
> 
> The 'contract' that most people are referring to is actually a collective bargaining agreement. The reason the document is an agreement and does not qualify as a contract is because in order for an agreement to be a contract there must be two parties agreeing to an exchange of goods and/or services. In other words, the teachers agree to teach and SMCPS agrees to pay them a specific amount. However, the way this county works is that the teachers are paid by SMCPS but the money comes from the BOCC. So, there cannot be a contract between the teachers and SMCPS because the money (i.e. good/service mentioned above) is coming from a 3rd party. Instead, there is a collective bargaining agreement.
> 
> Because Maryland is not a Right to Strike state and the collective bargaining agreement is not enforceable by the court system, EASMC has very limited choices for work actions. Examples of work actions would include Work to Rule and Back to Basics.
> 
> Nobody is hiding anything. You have all the facts (including quite a bit of research, that I doubt you read, in my previous posts). You're free to make your own decision about whether or not you support the teachers in their struggle for fair compensation.


So what you are saying is that "contract" you have been link'ing isn't and all the supporters have been using as a reference really isn't a legal contract and thus the teachers/EASMC really doesn't have a leg to stand on when it comes to demanding to a pay raise. 

Well, this does answer the question why no one will take the county to court, they don't have a leg to stand on.


----------



## intertidal

GW8345 said:


> So what you are saying is that "contract" you have been link'ing isn't and all the supporters have been using as a reference really isn't a legal contract and thus the teachers/EASMC really doesn't have a leg to stand on when it comes to demanding to a pay raise.
> 
> Well, this does answer the question why no one will take the county to court, they don't have a leg to stand on.



Semantics. It is a legal agreement after a "meeting of the minds", no different than any other negotiated agreement between public employee unions and the state, counties, or cities in MD. It is rare for such contracts to be signed by the same people making the decision to fund them. The Bd. of Ed is the designated signatory to the negotiated agreement. They negotiated the agreement (contract) on behalf of the county. The job of the commissioners is to fund what their designees negotiated. The most plausible reason why it has not gone to court is the unwillingness of the union to poison the waters and the delay that would result. The other public workers in St. Mary's County have no better contract, yet they received increases. Do you require only the specific public workers whom you don't care for, to negotiate first with the county's designated authority and then again with the authority that provides the funding? That would be a good example of an unfair labor practice (ULP).


----------



## FollowTheMoney

*When Does a Contract Exist?*

When Does a Contract Exist?

When a party files a suit claiming a breach of contract, the first question the judge must answer is whether a contract existed between the parties. The complaining party must prove four elements to show that a contract existed:

    1. Offer - One of the parties made a promise to do or refrain from doing some specified action in the future.

    2. Consideration - Something of value was promised in exchange for the specified action or non-action. This can take the form of a significant expenditure of money or effort, a promise to perform some service, an agreement not to do something, or reliance on the promise. Consideration is the value that induces the parties to enter into the contract.

    The existence of consideration distinguishes a contract from a gift. A gift is a voluntary and gratuitous transfer of property from one person to another, without something of value promised in return. Failure to follow through on a promise to make a gift is not enforceable as a breach of contract because there is no consideration for the promise.

    3. Acceptance - The offer was accepted unambiguously. Acceptance may be expressed through words, deeds or performance as called for in the contract. Generally, the acceptance must mirror the terms of the offer. If not, the acceptance is viewed as a rejection and counteroffer.

    If the contract involves a sale of goods (i.e. items that are movable) between merchants, then the acceptance does not have to mirror the terms of the offer for a valid contract to exist, unless:

        (a) the terms of the acceptance significantly alter the original contract; or
        (b) the offeror objects within a reasonable time.

    4. Mutuality - The contracting parties had “a meeting of the minds” regarding the agreement. This means the parties understood and agreed to the basic substance and terms of the contract.

*So....*

Did _*all*_ the teachers perform and uphold their end of the contract? ie. Did the students learn? Were test scores significantly higher that the year before?
Were graduation rates higher than the year before? Did *all* the teachers do their jobs to the utmost of their ability? 

Since it is a collective, a hand full of bad teachers can nullify a "contract" by their failure to perform messing it up for all the good teachers. Just a thought.
So should raises be given across the board if there are bad teachers that are part of the collective bargaining, the "contract"? If all do not perform equally
to the high standards expected from parents and the Education Board, is that not a failure to perform? Therefore voiding the performance clause requiring
raises? Is not the Education Board within it's rights not to grant raises?


----------



## intertidal

There is no issue with failure of teachers in St. Mary's County to live up to their end of the agreement. The only issue is with the administration's failure to fund its agreement. 

Is your word good? Do you enter into agreements and then change your mind and not pay what you owe? If you are a company owner or CEO and authorize a subordinate to negotiate a contract on your behalf, and then you blow your wad in Vegas, does that absolve you from honoring your contract?

We can all save plenty of money by obtaining services and then not honoring our agreement to pay. Where is the honor?


----------



## glitch

GW8345 said:


> So what you are saying is that "contract" you have been link'ing isn't and all the supporters have been using as a reference really isn't a legal contract and thus the teachers/EASMC really doesn't have a leg to stand on when it comes to demanding to a pay raise.
> 
> Well, this does answer the question why no one will take the county to court, they don't have a leg to stand on.



No, you're absolutely right. Teachers don't have a leg to stand on. 

Your wife asks you to take out the trash. You agree to do so and then don't do it. She gets upset with because you agreed to do something and didn't do it. Good thing you don't have a contract with her to take out the trash, it was just an agreement. So she doesn't have a leg to stand on. What's her problem?

A friend asks you to pick them up at the airport. You agree to do so and then don't do it. Your friend gets upset with you because you agreed to pick them up and you didn't. Now they're stranded at the airport. Good thing you didn't have a contract with your friend to pick them up from the airport, it was just an agreement. So they don't have a leg to stand on. What's their problem?

Your boss asks you to take on an extra assignment at work. You agree to do so and then don't do it. Your boss gets upset with you because you agreed to do something and didn't do it. Good thing you didn't sign a contract with your boss regarding completion of the extra assignment, it was just an agreement. So your boss doesn't have a leg to stand on. What's their problem?

Do you see a pattern here? Maybe some similarities to the current situation that teachers have been put in? Is a court enforceable contract really a requirement for you in order for you to do something? SMCPS agreed to increase teachers' salaries and they didn't. Do teachers have the right to be upset and do something about it? They most certainly do. The same right that your wife, friend, and boss have to be mad that you failed to live up to an agreement you had with them. Just because an agreement is not a court enforceable contract doesn't mean that there won't be consequences for violating the agreement. Back to Basics is exactly that. It's a consequence for repeated violation of the agreement between SMCPS and the teachers.


----------



## Gilligan

intertidal said:


> Is your word good? Do you enter into agreements and then change your mind and not pay what you owe?



But whose "word" are you/we talking about here?   BoCC or BoE?  Now that we know all previous references to a "contractual obligation" were diversionary BS..now where are we?  BoCC making promises that can only be kept using money they don't have?...or promises that might have been kept if they were better managers of the money they did/do have?...what?  

No wonder Martirano ran away.


----------



## ChesBchSportsmn

SG_Player1974 said:


> Sorry but.... I have ZERO sympathy for teachers around here. Summer off, 1 or 2 days a month for lesson planning, teacher in-services, etc... etc....
> 
> My father was a teacher for 30 years and barely got pay raises and NEVER took it out on the children. PLUS..... he never got these days off during the month for "planning"
> 
> Sure... he made lesson plans and had time to form a teaching agenda for the next term.... IT WAS CALLED SUMMER!!! You know.... when he got PAID but was not at the school everyday!
> 
> As for the "too much work when not in school" all I have to say is..... WELCOME TO THE REST OF THE WORKING WORLD!!!


I agree with you whole-heartedly. The truth is, in my opinion, teachers tend to be those who partied the hardest in college, and ended up majoring in history or sociology or English, degrees that are relatively easy to get but rather hard to get jobs with. Most teachers in my view are those who never wanted to get out of school in the first place. Many teachers I know, especially the young female teachers, try to be like their students by dressing like them, talking like them, gossiping with them, and becoming their "friends" on Facebook or other social media. 

There is a reason the saying, "Those who can't teach," came into existence, and it is not something someone just pulled out of the air for no reason.


----------



## Gilligan

ChesBchSportsmn said:


> I agree with you whole-heartedly. The truth is, in my opinion, teachers tend to be those that partied the hardest in college, and ended up majoring in history or sociology, degrees that are relatively easy to get but rather hard to get jobs with. Most teachers in my view are those who never wanted to get out of school in the first place. There is a reason the saying, "Those who can't teach," came into existence, and it is not something someone just pulled out of the air for no reason.



I have to go on record stating that I definitely do not hold or agree with that view. I owe a LOT to, particularly, the science and math teachers I had in HS, but too many other who were excellent as well; history..English...  My daughters both graduated from SMCPS and went on to do very well in college....very well.  

You have to be able to separate the "political" aspects of this, which feeds off of some long-time professional pot stirrers in the teacher's unions and BoE, in particular. In my opinion.


----------



## Lurk

ChesBchSportsmn said:


> Many teachers I know, especially the young female teachers, try to be like their students by dressing like them, talking like them, gossiping with them, and becoming their "friends" on Facebook or other social media.



You are leaving out the bits about showing the boys the wonders of oral sex and other delights.

EDIT: I guess I should acknowledge that the female phys ed majors don't necessarily favor the boys.


----------



## Radiant1

Gilligan said:


> But whose "word" are you/we talking about here?   BoCC or BoE?  Now that we know all previous references to a "contractual obligation" were diversionary BS..now where are we?



Not diversionary BS. As intertidal said, semantics. Replace "contractual obligation" to "legal obligation" and you still have the same thing. As far as I'm aware, the only thing that would nullify the CBA in the state of Maryland is if the BoE had no authority to negotiate on behalf of the county, which is possible but not likely. I think the Maryland Senate Bill 741 designates the BoE. See also Maryland Code Section 6 Subtitles 401 thru 411. http://policy.mofcom.gov.cn/english...ageNo=1#maryland-education-title-6-subtitle-4


----------



## GW8345

glitch said:


> No, you're absolutely right. Teachers don't have a leg to stand on.
> 
> Your wife asks you to take out the trash. You agree to do so and then don't do it. She gets upset with because you agreed to do something and didn't do it. Good thing you don't have a contract with her to take out the trash, it was just an agreement. So she doesn't have a leg to stand on. What's her problem?
> 
> A friend asks you to pick them up at the airport. You agree to do so and then don't do it. Your friend gets upset with you because you agreed to pick them up and you didn't. Now they're stranded at the airport. Good thing you didn't have a contract with your friend to pick them up from the airport, it was just an agreement. So they don't have a leg to stand on. What's their problem?
> 
> Your boss asks you to take on an extra assignment at work. You agree to do so and then don't do it. Your boss gets upset with you because you agreed to do something and didn't do it. Good thing you didn't sign a contract with your boss regarding completion of the extra assignment, it was just an agreement. So your boss doesn't have a leg to stand on. What's their problem?
> 
> Do you see a pattern here? Maybe some similarities to the current situation that teachers have been put in? Is a court enforceable contract really a requirement for you in order for you to do something? SMCPS agreed to increase teachers' salaries and they didn't. Do teachers have the right to be upset and do something about it? They most certainly do. The same right that your wife, friend, and boss have to be mad that you failed to live up to an agreement you had with them. Just because an agreement is not a court enforceable contract doesn't mean that there won't be consequences for violating the agreement. Back to Basics is exactly that. It's a consequence for repeated violation of the agreement between SMCPS and the teachers.


There's a difference between legality and morality, remember, part of the equation here is politicians and we all know there is very little to none morality when it comes to politicians. This issue also is a business issue and ever smart business person knows that you get all agreements in writing, otherwise, you are going to get screwed because morality in business is few and far between.

Also, this issue clearly shows to me why Martirano is running away; and people think he's done a good job. I'd like to know what happened to that 6 million the county had to give the school board because they can't seem to figure out a budget.


----------



## Gilligan

Radiant1 said:


> Not diversionary BS. As intertidal said, semantics. Replace "contractual obligation" to "legal obligation" and you still have the same thing.



When the difference defines whether the enforcement or arbitration falls under a court's jurisdiction, the difference is FAR more than "semantics".


----------



## glitch

ChesBchSportsmn said:


> I agree with you whole-heartedly. The truth is, in my opinion, teachers tend to be those who partied the hardest in college, and ended up majoring in history or sociology or English, degrees that are relatively easy to get but rather hard to get jobs with. Most teachers in my view are those who never wanted to get out of school in the first place. Many teachers I know, especially the young female teachers, try to be like their students by dressing like them, talking like them, gossiping with them, and becoming their "friends" on Facebook or other social media.
> 
> There is a reason the saying, "Those who can't teach," came into existence, and it is not something someone just pulled out of the air for no reason.



Ah yes, over-generalization and stereotyping of large groups of individuals. This has informed opinion written all over it. It's amazing to me that you know and have spoken with enough teachers (1000+ since that's what you need for a representative sample) to make these kinds of statements. You must be a very busy man. 

I've always found that particular saying odd since one of the best to determine whether or not someone has an actual understanding of a skill and or content is to have them try and teach it to someone else. If they can't, they don't understand it well enough and need to hit the books a little harder. Plenty of people can do things, few can teach others how to do them.


----------



## intertidal

GW8345 said:


> So what you are saying is that "contract" you have been link'ing isn't and all the supporters have been using as a reference really isn't a legal contract and thus the teachers/EASMC really doesn't have a leg to stand on when it comes to demanding to a pay raise.
> 
> Well, this does answer the question why no one will take the county to court, they don't have a leg to stand on.



This line of reasoning suggests that all other county workers MUST have an absolutely iron-clad contract with the BOCC since their increases were honored. If that is so, then where is it? (it took me, someone not covered by the EASMC agreement, just a few minutes to find their signed agreement with the county on the internet, so let's see the county workers' contract - which must exist, eh?)


----------



## intertidal

Gilligan said:


> When the difference defines whether the enforcement or arbitration falls under a court's jurisdiction, the difference is FAR more than "semantics".



Agreements are agreements. When you negotiate and obtain a signed agreement with the designated authority, what more can you do? If the BOCC decide to change their own rules for negotiation with the teachers' union and choose instead to actively participate personally in collective bargaining with the union, then I doubt the union would object. Until then, they should abide by the negotiations done on their behalf by their designees.


----------



## Gilligan

intertidal said:


> Agreements are agreements. .



You obviously live in a world that is quite different than the one I have been trained to negotiate contracts, US and international,  in for 30 years.  I love the sentiment....but recognize the fatal fallacy.  Just sayin'...


----------



## intertidal

Gilligan said:


> You obviously live in a world that is quite different than the one I have been trained to negotiate contracts, US and international,  in for 30 years.  I love the sentiment....but recognize the fatal fallacy.  Just sayin'...



OK then. Please show us the iron-clad negotiated contract between the other county workers and the BOCC. Surely, it must exist - are not their raises proof of it?

I've also been part of negotiating teams - and never have I heard anyone claim that by negotiating with the designated authority on the other side of the table, that our agreement might be invalid.


----------



## Gilligan

intertidal said:


> OK then. Please show us the iron-clad negotiated contract between the other county workers and the BOCC. .



Are there any?..and what does that have to do with this thread??  Thanks.


----------



## intertidal

Gilligan said:


> Are there any?..and what does that have to do with this thread??  Thanks.



It is relevant only because some posters claim the EASMC agreement is not technically a contract, but "only" an agreement with the Bd of Ed, and not the BOCC. Since other county workers were fully funded, perhaps they have such a contract with the BOCC? Otherwise, how could their increases be justified? Somewhat playing the devil's advocate here, but really wondering how do you otherwise justify raises for all county employees except teachers? So I'm asking - if this agreement is not a contract and that is why they did not get their increases, where is the contract for those employees who did receive increases?


----------



## Gilligan

intertidal said:


> It is relevant only because some posters claim the EASMC agreement is not technically a contract, but "only" an agreement with the Bd of Ed, and not the BOCC. Since other county workers were fully funded, perhaps they have such a contract with the BOCC? Otherwise, how could their increases be justified? Somewhat playing the devil's advocate here, but really wondering how do you otherwise justify raises for all county employees except teachers? So I'm asking - if this agreement is not a contract and that is why they did not get their increases, where is the contract for those employees who did receive increases?



*sigh*..this thread has been filled with assertions that fall to pieces.  That surely is not helping.


----------



## BigBlue

SG_Player1974 said:


> Personally I'm tired of all this BS about equal pay for SMC teachers.....
> 
> You know what.... YOU WANT EQUAL PAY..... then fine! Give these teachers equal pay! BUT... guess what?
> 
> YOUR AZZ BETTER BE IN THAT DAMN SCHOOL FOR 8 HOURS A DAY... MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY..... YEAR ROUND!!! No more summers off!
> 
> 
> You want summer off... I hope you got 100 days of vacation saved up beloved teacher! JUST LIKE THE REST OF US WHO HAVEN'T RECEIVED A RAISE IN YEARS!
> 
> Oh yeah..... FORGET ABOUT THE TEACHER IN-SERVICE DAYS! GONE!!!! You can earn your money just like the rest of us.... WORKING and teaching the children you are PAID to teach!
> 
> PUT UP OR SHUT UP AND JOIN THE REST OF THE WORKING WORLD!




 LOL eff you ! Do you people ever read what it is you write ,my effing God ! Teachers don't get half of what they should ,just to let you know and I don't know about your father but teachers now are off during the summer taking more class's to stay qualified to teach your little pains in the AZZ's .Bad enough that now to teach you need a Master's which mean more student loan debt out of college but they have to deal with the likes of all the over blown DIck parents and their children like all of you here on this thread .If any of you had read the story the teachers are teaching but not doing the extra's they don't get paid for like running chess club or debate club .No teachers deserve a hell of alot more ,name another job where when people complain about you they are always right,parents some who never got out of high school them selves (like GW8345) can complain because their child is perfect , every parents child is perfect ....and then this teacher with a BA and MA in education has the nerve to tell them little johnny can't read so they want her fired ! Teachers are good people doing something you can't or don't want to do ,they deserve better .


----------



## Radiant1

Gilligan said:


> When the difference defines whether the enforcement or arbitration falls under a court's jurisdiction, the difference is FAR more than "semantics".




Of course it's semantics, Gilligan. If one party fails to live up to the agreement, then it certainly falls under *a* courts jurisdiction if and when it is brought forward. Whether it goes to county, state or fed court makes no difference. CBAs are legally binding in MD, and I pointed out to you that MD has designated the BoE to arbitrate such agreements on behalf of SMCPS. If there was language in the CBA regarding pay raises being dependent upon funding from the BoCC or any other entity, then I'd back off in my support, but as far as I can tell there is no such designation. The pay was promised without a contingency.


----------



## Ken King

Radiant1 said:


> Of course it's semantics, Gilligan. If one party fails to live up to the agreement, then it certainly falls under *a* courts jurisdiction if and when it is brought forward. Whether it goes to county, state or fed court makes no difference. CBAs are legally binding in MD, and I pointed out to you that MD has designated the BoE to *arbitrate *such agreements on behalf of SMCPS. If there was language in the CBA regarding pay raises being dependent upon funding from the BoCC or any other entity, then I'd back off in my support, but as far as I can tell there is no such designation. The pay was promised without a contingency.


Semantics, I know, but I don't think arbitrate is the appropriate term in this instance.  The BoE is the employer and the EASMC is the union and they together *negotiate *the collective bargaining agreement, which is a binding labor contract if the union agrees (through member ratification) once the employer and union negotiator affix signature to it (and the date of activation is achieved). Under this agreement disputes are to be first dealt with via the negotiated grievance procedure and if no suitable resolution is achieved it can then be sent to arbitration, which is the preferred dispute resolution avenue.  Failing to resolve such dispute at that level it would next progress to the Public School Labor Relations Board and then the appropriate court of jurisdiction. 

As I see the issue, the problem is where the BoE agreed to pay increases that either the BoCC did not fund or maybe they did and the Superintendent/BoE used the funds elsewhere.  Regardless of why they aren't receiving the raises it is a violation of the labor contract.


----------



## Radiant1

Ken King said:


> Semantics, I know, but I don't think arbitrate is the appropriate term in this instance.  The BoE is the employer and the EASMC is the union and they together *negotiate *the collective bargaining agreement, which is a binding labor contract if the union agrees (through member ratification) once the employer and union negotiator affix signature to it (and the date of activation is achieved). Under this agreement disputes are to be first dealt with via the negotiated grievance procedure and if no suitable resolution is achieved it can then be sent to arbitration, which is the preferred dispute resolution avenue.  Failing to resolve such dispute at that level it would next progress to the Public School Labor Relations Board and then the appropriate court of jurisdiction.
> 
> As I see the issue, the problem is where the BoE agreed to pay increases that either the BoCC did not fund or maybe they did and the Superintendent/BoE used the funds elsewhere.  Regardless of why they aren't receiving the raises it is a violation of the labor contract.


----------



## Gilligan

Radiant1 said:


> Of course it's semantics, Gilligan. If one party fails to live up to the agreement, then it certainly falls under *a* courts jurisdiction if and when it is brought forward. Whether it goes to county, state or fed court makes no difference. CBAs are legally binding in MD, .



so we're back to asking then...why isn't this dispute being handled in a simple legal fashion?..instead of resorting to "stunts"?


----------



## Ken King

Gilligan said:


> so we're back to asking then...why isn't this dispute being handled in a simple legal fashion?..instead of resorting to "stunts"?



It might be being handled in the appropriate manner of first being a grievance, then being arbitrated, it could even be before the Public School Labor Relations Board at this time, I have no clue as to where in the process they are as I am not a party to the issue.  And while the process is ongoing the "stunts", as you refer to them, could be just a method of showing the BoE that they are serious in seeing that the agreement be adhered to.


----------



## Gilligan

Ken King said:


> It might be being handled in the appropriate manner of first being a grievance, then being arbitrated, it could even be before the Public School Labor Relations Board at this time, I have no clue as to where in the process they are as I am not a party to the issue.  And while the process is ongoing the "stunts", as you refer to them, could be just a method of showing the BoE that they are serious in seeing that the agreement be adhered to.



You are doing a lot of guessing. I don't indulge in that in that if I can avoid it. I don't like "stunts"...that's just me; and always has been.


----------



## intertidal

Gilligan said:


> You are doing a lot of guessing. I don't indulge in that in that if I can avoid it. I don't like "stunts"...that's just me; and always has been.



It may look like stunts, but it is important this year to refuse extra favors considering that the workload this year has been increased to compensate for decreased staffing in the face of increasing enrollment. Working to basics means they will still have more students and more work than they did last year - before all the begging for extra out-of-contract work they are not supposed to be doing in the first place.


----------



## Gilligan

intertidal said:


> It may look like stunts, but it is important this year to refuse extra favors considering that the workload this year has been increased to compensate for decreased staffing in the face of increasing enrollment. Working to basics means they will still have more students and more work than they did last year - before all the begging for extra out-of-contract work they are not supposed to be doing in the first place.



My sister is a HS teacher in VA. When her district presented them with two options..reduced number of teachers or decreased pay...they decided overwhelmingly to accept the pay decrease so that nobody lost their position.

Whatever.  I'll be the first to say that this county has done a terrible job planning for and dealing with the growth of the student population....terrible.


----------



## Ken King

Gilligan said:


> You are doing a lot of guessing. I don't indulge in that in that if I can avoid it. I don't like "stunts"...that's just me; and always has been.


No more than you or anyone else that isn't directly involved.  And is it a stunt to "work to rule" or are you just guessing that it is a stunt and not an accepted labor dispute practice?


----------



## Gilligan

Ken King said:


> No more than you or anyone else that isn't directly involved.  And is it a stunt to "work to rule" or are you just guessing that it is a stunt and not an accepted labor dispute practice?



I'm sure you, if anyone, understands what a labor stunt is. It's more about how how its advertised, publicized and otherwise shouted loud about than what it actually is.  What good is a temper tantrum if nobody who cares ever sees it?


----------



## Ken King

Gilligan said:


> I'm sure you, if anyone, understands *what a labor stunt is*. It's more about how how its advertised, publicized and otherwise shouted loud about than what it actually is.  What good is a temper tantrum if nobody who cares ever sees it?



Sure do, it's contractually agreeing to paying raises based on tenure or a cola and then refusing to pay them.


----------



## Gilligan

Ken King said:


> Sure do, it's contractually agreeing to paying raises based on tenure or a cola and then refusing to pay them.



And here we are full circle again...is this a cut-n-dry contractual matter/breach..or isn't it?????


----------



## Ken King

Gilligan said:


> And here we are full circle again...is this a cut-n-dry contractual matter/breach..or isn't it?????



Cut and dry, for me it seems to be.  A CBA is a legally enforceable contract for a specified period, between the management of an organization and its employees represented by an independent trade union. It sets down and defines conditions of employment (wages, working hours and conditions, overtime payments, holidays, vacations, benefits, etc.) and *procedures for dispute resolution*.  

Are CBAs and standard business contracts different, absolutely.  Here is an old article from the Yale Law Journal that might give you a better understanding, a little long but a good read none the less if your desire is to understand.  http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4907&context=fss_papers


----------



## Gilligan

Ken King said:


> Cut and dry, for me it seems to be.  A CBA is a legally enforceable contract for a specified period, between the management of an organization and its employees represented by an independent trade union. It sets down and defines conditions of employment (wages, working hours and conditions, overtime payments, holidays, vacations, benefits, etc.) and *procedures for dispute resolution*.
> 
> Are CBAs and standard business contracts different, absolutely.  Here is an old article from the Yale Law Journal that might give you a better understanding, a little long but a good read none the less if your desire is to understand.  http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4907&context=fss_papers



But I'm still confused. If the BoE makes a financial commitment that they cannot keep...what happens then?  Is the BoCC supposed to just "bail them out"? Or did the BoE make those commitments with the direct knowledge and consent of the BoCC and promises to provide the requisite funds?


----------



## Hijinx

Gilligan said:


> But I'm still confused. If the BoE makes a financial commitment that they cannot keep...what happens then?  Is the BoCC supposed to just "bail them out"? Or did the BoE make those commitments with the direct knowledge and consent of the BoCC and promises to provide the requisite funds?



What happens?? The Superintendent hauls azz.


----------



## intertidal

Gilligan said:


> But I'm still confused. If the BoE makes a financial commitment that they cannot keep...what happens then?  Is the BoCC supposed to just "bail them out"? Or did the BoE make those commitments with the direct knowledge and consent of the BoCC and promises to provide the requisite funds?



Well, you've been in negotiations - wouldn't it be great to read the minds "across the table" to know how much they have been authorized to pay (or give up) so you don't leave money on the table? In this respect, it is like a poker game.


----------



## Gilligan

intertidal said:


> Well, you've been in negotiations - wouldn't it be great to read the minds "across the table" to know how much they have been authorized to pay (or give up) so you don't leave money on the table? In this respect, it is like a poker game.



I was only asking about the outcome, not the negotiation "process" per se. I'm only asking about any commitments actually made.  So again, when the BoE makes a commitment on salaries and benefits...who has the ultimate responsibility to honor that that commitment with real money? The BoCC??. From what I'm reading here, it almost sounds like the BoE is writing checks when they have no bank to draw from.


----------



## Ken King

Gilligan said:


> But I'm still confused. If the BoE makes a financial commitment that they cannot keep...what happens then?  Is the BoCC supposed to just "bail them out"? Or did the BoE make those commitments with the direct knowledge and consent of the BoCC and promises to provide the requisite funds?



The financial commitment for salaries should have been a known value to almost certainty as the requirements are spelled out and should have been budgeted accordingly.  Other BoE liabilities might be more volatile but to compensate for that by denying agreed upon increases for the teachers isn't the method that should have been employed.  Does anyone know with any confidence what caused the fiduciary turmoil that lead to this act?  I don't as I'm not connected or involved enough to know.


----------



## dave1959

These discussions end up being more entertaining that the thread topic itself.... Lmao


----------



## Lurk

Ken King said:


> The financial commitment for salaries should have been a known value to almost certainty as the requirements are spelled out and should have been budgeted accordingly.  Other BoE liabilities might be more volatile but to compensate for that by denying agreed upon increases for the teachers isn't the method that should have been employed.  Does anyone know with any confidence what caused the fiduciary turmoil that lead to this act?  I don't as I'm not connected or involved enough to know.



If what you say is true, and I believe it is the underlying problem in this case, the Superintendent of schools is responsible for not re-budgeting the amount of funds allocated.  The schools might have to do drastic things like eliminate or charge for extra-curricular activities, not fund new equipment for high school sports programs, eliminate/re-assign central-office resources, etc. to pay for the salary requirements.


----------



## Ken King

Lurk said:


> If what you say is true, and I believe it is the underlying problem in this case, the Superintendent of schools is responsible for not re-budgeting the amount of funds allocated.  The schools might have to do drastic things like eliminate or charge for extra-curricular activities, not fund new equipment for high school sports programs, eliminate/re-assign central-office resources, etc. to pay for the salary requirements.



And that is just it.  It is the Superintendent's job to point that out to the BoCC when getting his funding.  That they empowered him to negotiate the deal and that they must honor the obligation by the complete funding of those salaries.  This should be done before any other funding is discussed.


----------



## Hijinx

Ken King said:


> And that is just it.  It is the Superintendent's job to point that out to the BoCC when getting his funding.  That they empowered him to negotiate the deal and that they must honor the obligation by the complete funding of those salaries.  This should be done before any other funding is discussed.



Didn't the Superintendent quit? Don't they have an interim superintendent?


----------



## Ken King

Hijinx said:


> Didn't the Superintendent quit? Don't they have an interim superintendent?



Yeah so.  Had he quit before he agreed to the CBA or submitted the budget to the BoCC?  

No interim yet, I believe that the interim won't be in place until 9/22 or so.


----------



## awpitt

Hijinx said:


> Didn't the Superintendent quit? Don't they have an interim superintendent?



The superintendent doesn't leave until late September. The interim superintendent starts at that time.


----------



## kom526

Advice was given to the Superintendent regarding how the money needed to be allocated to avoid the deficit, but that advice was not entirely heeded. :shrug: Look for greater oversight by the BoCC in the future in regards to the budget.


----------

